Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. The authority has observed that before the documents presented by the appellant could be verified, he preferred writ petition before the High Court and during the course of verification of the marksheet of the appellant pertaining to the examinations of 2008, it stood revealed that all the evidences produced by the appellant had not been issued by or received from the University. The order further indicates that no Registrar was appointed in the Institution during the relevant period of time, however, the letter pad and even seal of Registrar had been utilized for the purposes of procuring documents.

17. The order further indicates that a document of recognition to the B.L. Vidya Mandir, Dev Nagar, Jheel ka Purva, District Banda, allegedly dated 16.04.2005 had been produced, however, on query, the Vice Chancellor of the University had informed that the documents did not pertain to the Institution nor was there any evidence to demonstrate that the same were issued from the Institution and, consequently, the documents produced were found to be forged.

18. After recording various findings regarding production of forged and fabricated documents by the appellant, the authority has concluded that the appellant had procured appointment on the post of Excise Constable based upon forged and fabricated documents and, further, Adhikari Pariksha allegedly conducted by the said University was not equivalent to High School Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education.