Allahabad High Court
Gajendra Singh Sisodia vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 6 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:196144
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14165 of 2020
Gajendra Singh Sisodia
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Kaushlesh Pratap Singh
With
WRIT - A No. - 2871 of 2021
Gajendra Singh Sisodia
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
In Person, Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Kaushlesh Pratap Singh
Court No. - 34
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Gajendra Singh Sisodia, writ petitioner in person, Sri S.K. Pal, learned Additional CSC for the State and Sri K.P. Singh for the Regional Director, National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT), Gorakhpur.
2. A joint statement has been made by the parties that they do not propose to file any further affidavit and the writ petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the writ petitions are being decided at the admission stage.
3. Since the matters are interwoven are connected with each other, thus, a common order is being passed.
4. The case of the writ petition is that the writ petitioner applied in the month of October, 2013 for pursuing Course of Computer Concepts (CCC) from National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (hereinafter referred to 'NIELIT') before the authorized institute namely SCM Institute of Information Technology, Bulandshahr which was duly authorized by NIELIT, Gorakhpur. That the petitioner appeared in CCC examination conducted by NIELIT, Gorakhpur on 30.12.2013 at the respective centre namely Multi Trek Institute of Computer Information (MICI), Meerut. Since the writ petitioner came to be successful and cleared the said course so on 13.10.2014, a certificate came to be issued by the NIELIT, Gorakhpur referable to course of computer concepts depicting the name of the writ petitioner as Gajendra Singh Sisodia while mentioning the mother's name as Mithilesh and father's name as Kripal Singh bearing serial no. 00388347 and Roll No. GO1312035745. According to the writ petitioner, since the name of the mother of the writ petitioner is Bala Devi, however, it has been incorrectly incorporated as Mithilesh so the writ petitioner apprised the said fact to the Z-Net Computer Education Railway Board, Hapur who assured the writ petitioner while pretending itself to be the authorized centre of the fifth respondent in the leading writ petition, Director, SCM Institute of Information Technology, Bulandshahr (an institute authorized by NIELIT, Gorakhpur) while coming up with the stand that it was entrusted with the duty admit cards for appearing in normalized written examination and providing CCC certificate issued by NIELIT, Gorakhpur. Accordingly, the said centre namely Z-Net Computer Centre got issued a certificate of the CCC bearing the same serial allotment number mentioning the name of the writ petitioner being Bala Devi. Thereafter, a recruitment exercise stood undertaken by virtue of publication of an advertisement in the year 2016 by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission, Lucknow for Village Development Officer and the writ petitioner participated and based upon the qualification which he possessed obviously CCC certificate from NIELIT, he was accorded appointment on 10.10.2018, however, the District Development Officer, Hapur in order to verify the testimonials which the writ petitioner had submitted including CCC certificate had sent the verification letter dated 14.10.2020 whereby the CCC certificate of the petitioner as issued by NIELIT has been certified as not being issued by NIELIT and accordingly a notice came to be issued to the writ petitioner on 27.10.2020 by District Development Officer, Hapur show causing the writ petitioner which came to be replied by the writ petitioner on 04.11.2020. Since the writ petitioner came to know that a fraud had been practised by the said centre and the writ petitioner was harbouring under the impression that connections have been made by the authority competent to do so, thus, the writ petitioner preferred the leading writ petition seeking relief to the extent that a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to the Regional Director, NIELIT, Gorakhpur to make necessary corrections in the CCC certificate dated 13.10.2014 with respect to the name of the petitioner mother as Bala Devi in place of Mithilesh and to issue a fresh certificate correcting the name of the mother of the writ petitioner.
5. During the pendency of the leading writ petition, an order came to be passed by the District Development Officer, Hapur on 29.01.2021 dispensing with the selection and the appointment of the writ petitioner on the premise that CCC certificate which has been submitted by the writ petitioner issued by NIELIT is a forged certificate as the name of the mother of writ petitioner was Bala Devi which has been mentioned as Mithilesh and the said certificate, in fact, pertains to Rajeev Kumar which had been issued on the same date i.e. on 13.10.2014 bearing serial no. 90388346 and Roll No. GO1312025744. This led to filing of the connected writ petition wherein challenge was raised to the order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the District Development Officer whereby the services of the writ petitioner on the post of Village Development Officer, District Hapur had been terminated with immediate effect.
6. The connected writ petition came to be entertained by this Court on 19.03.2021 seeking response from the respondents. On 15.04.2025, notices were issued to the second respondent, Regional Director, NIELIT, Gorakhpur. In the meantime, the writ petitioner herein preferred a Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. (S) 54917 of 2024 against the order dated 19.03.2021 whereby the writ petition was entertained and notices were issued. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its order dated 07.03.2024, an order came to be passed by the Apex Court requiring the writ petition to be decided expeditiously as possible.
7. Thereafter in connected petition on 15.09.2025, the following orders have been passed.-
"Heard Sri Gajendra Singh Sisodia, petitioner in person, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri K.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
In compliance of the detailed order of this Court dated 08.09.2025, petitioner has placed both the original certificates obtained from the authorized centre of NIELIT at Hapur. Upon comparison of both the documents, I find that both were issued on 30.10.2014 but the document which bears correct name of the mother of the petitioner as Bala Devi does not have the embossed seal, whereas, the other document issued in the same date and bears the name of the mother of the petitioner as Mithilesh has embossed seal. This shows that petitioner was defrauded by the centre and had rightly lodged the first information report and charge sheet has been filed by the police against the centre In charge.
Since respondent NIELIT has not disputed the fact that petitioner was duly registered with it and has completed the course 'CCC' certificate, it is the duty of NIELIT to have corrected the name of the petitioner as Bala Devi instead of Mithilesh.
Sri K.P. Singh however, states that name of the mother of the petitioner has got transcribed as Mithilesh in the certificate on account of declaration in the application made by the petitioner himself while seeking admission in the course.
Let the application of petitioner available in the record of respondent NIELIT be placed before the Court on the next date fixed.
Original certificates are returned to the petitioner.
List on 07.10.2025 on the top of the board."
8. On 08.10.2025, the following orders have been passed followed by the order dated 27.10.2025 which reads as under.-
"1. Pursuant to the order dated 15.09.2025, the matter is before this Court, Sri K.P. Singh who appears for the respondents has produced before this Court the application of the petitioner.
2. On perusal of the same, it is apparent that the date of the application is 19.10.2023 and the writ petitioner had shown the name of her mother as Ms. Mithilesh.
3. Confronted with the same, the petitioner in person has invited the attention of the Court towards page 29 of the rejoinder affidavit, Annexure-RA-4 commencing from page 25 being the first information report lodged by the writ petitioner wherein, it has been contended that the writ petitioner had proceeded to get the corrections done in the month of November, 2014. On a pointed query being raised to Sri K.P. Singh as to what is the procedure for corrections etc., he seeks time to file a short affidavit bringing on record the complete procedure so contemplated regarding submission of the forms.
4. On his request, put up this matter on 27.10.2025 in the additional cause list.
5. The application forms so produced are returned to Sri K.P. Singh, he shall keep a photocopy of the same."
9. The writ petitioner in person has sought to argue that the writ petitioner had been meted with fraud as the writ petitioner had applied in the month of October, 2013 for doing CCC which is being conducted by NIELIT as a matter of fact on 13.10.2014 a certificate was issued by NIELIT wherein though the name of the writ petitioner finds place as an applicant/candidate who had been successful and the father of the writ petitioner is Kripal Singh but on account of some typographical inadvertent error the name of the mother of the writ petitioner was wrongly mentioned as Mithilesh though the name of the mother of the writ petitioner is Bala Devi. It is also contended as soon as the writ petitioner came to know that a fraud had been committed by the Z Net Computer Education Centre who claim to be a centre of the respondent NIELIT the writ petitioner took recourse for correction of the name of the mother, however, the writ petitioner was placed under misconception that corrections have been done and the writ petitioner based upon the assurance and the documents which have been furnished proceeded not to further prosecute the matter before any competent authority, however, on verification now the order impugned has been passed on the premise that the Smt. Mithilesh is the mother of the writ petitioner and the certificate so possessed and claimed by the writ petitioner declaring him to be successful in CCC examination is a forged and fictitious certificate. The petitioner in person submits that already a first information has also been lodged against the authorized centre of NIELIT, Hapur and the services of the writ petitioner could not have been dispensed with in particular once the leading writ petition was pending and it was for the authorities to have verified the said aspect while conducting an investigation/inquiry in this regard.
10. Sri S.K. Pal learned Additional CSC and Sri K.P. Singh who appears for the NIELIT, Gorakhpur on instructions from their client have submitted that first of all whatever might be the authorities depend upon the certificate which is being submitted by the respective candidates and consequent to the verification they act upon. Submission is that there is no independent machinery available with them except to get it verified from the author of the same. According to them though it is claimed by the writ petitioner his father's name is Kripal Singh and the mother's name is Bala Devi but the certificate which the writ petitioner seeks to rely upon is not accepted to have been issued by the NIELIT. He submits that the writ petitioner in his application form had disclosed the name of his mother as Mithilesh Devi and Mithilesh Devi happens to be the mother of Rajeev Kumar and not the writ petitioner, however, according to him since it is the stand of the writ petitioner even before dispensing with the services while filing writ petition that the correction be made particularly when allegation is that authorized centre had practised fraud, thus, according to him in view of the notification for correction of registration profile from NIELIT dated 19.12.2023 the case of the writ petitioner would be considered as an exceptional case in that regard and an inquiry would be conducted in that regard. He further submits that, in case, it is found that the mother of the writ petitioner is Bala Devi and he had appeared in CCC examination so conducted in the year 2013 then the matter with regard to termination of the services of the writ petitioner on 29.01.2021 would be revisited.
11. To such a submission, Sri Gajendra Singh Sisodia, the petitioner in person has no objection, he submits that he will fully cooperate in this matter.
12. Considering the submissions so made across the bar and bearing in mind the fact that it is the stand of Sri S.K. Pal learned Additional CSC as per the instructions received from his client that in an exceptional case the correction which is being sought to be requested to be made while substituting the name from Mithilesh to Bala Devi as the mother's name would be considered as one time measure and the order dispensing with the services of the writ petitioner dated 29.01.2021 would be revisited subject to the fate and the outcome of the correction so sought to be made, in case, they are sustainable. This Court without delving further is disposing the writ petition on the consent of the parties in the following manner.-
(a) the writ petitioner shall appear before the Regional Director, NIELIT, Gorakhpur by 21.11.2025 along with original testimonials inclusive self attested copy of the writ petition, counter and rejoinder affidavit and certified copy of the order; (b) on the said motion, the Regional Director, NIELIT, Gorakhpur shall fix a date in the first week of December, 2025 put the petitioner to hearing while fixing a date and thereafter take an informed decision within a period of one month, thereafter strictly in accordance with law; (c) the order so passed by the Regional Director, NIELIT, Gorakhpur shall be communicated to District Development Officer, Hapur who shall revisit the matter with respect to the order dated 29.01.2021 dispensing with the services and an informed decision would be passed within a further period of one month.
13. With the said observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.) November 6, 2025 Rajesh