High Court · 2025

BTC qualified was confirm ed when his cert ificat e was sent for verificat ion t o Deput y Regist rar, Exam inat ion Regulat ory Aut horit y, U.P.

7. Learned St at e Counsel relied upon j udgm ent rendered by Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of R. Vi sh w a n a t h Pi l l a i Vs. St a t e o f K e r a l a a n d Ot h e r s, report ed in ( 2 0 0 4 ) 2 SCC 1 0 5 and also placed reliance on j udgm ent rendered by t his Court in WPSS No.254 of 2023 for cont ending t hat since respondent had secured appoint m ent as Teacher by playing fraud, t herefore, he is not ent it led t o prot ect ion under Art icle 311 of t he 3 Const it ut ion of I ndia. Relevant ext ract s of paragraph nos.12 of t he aforesaid j udgm ent is reproduced below: “ 12.... “ Where an appoint m ent in a service has been acquired by pract ising fraud or deceit , such an appoint m ent is no appoint m ent in law, in service and in such a sit uat ion Art icle 311 of t he Const it ut ion is not at t ract ed at all.”

8. Learned St at e Counsel has also referred t o anot her j udgm ent rendered by Hon’ble Suprem e Court in St a t e o f Bi h a r a n d Ot h e r s Vs. K i r t i N a r a y a n Pr a sa d report ed in ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 3 SCC 2 5 0 . Paragraph nos.14 of t he said j udgm ent is reproduced below: “ 16. I n t he inst ant cases, t he writ pet it ioners have filed t he pet it ions before t he High Court wit h a specific prayer t o r egularise t heir service and t o set aside t he order of t erm inat ion of t heir services. They have also challenged t he report subm it t ed by t he St at e Com m it t ee. The real cont roversy is whet her t he writ pet it ioners were legally and validly appoint ed. The finding of t he St at e Com m it t ee is t hat m any writ pet it ioners had secured appoint m ent by producing fake or forged appoint m ent let t er or had been induct ed in governm ent service surrept it iously t he Civil Sur geon- cum - Chief Medical Officer concerned by issuing a post ing order. The writ pet it ioners are t he beneficiaries of illegal orders m ade by t he Civil Surgeoncum - Chief Medical Officer. They were given not ice t o est ablish t he genuineness of t heir appoint m ent and t o show- cause. None of t hem could est ablish t he genuineness or legalit y of t heir appoint m ent before t he St at e Com m it t ee. The St at e Com m it t ee on appreciat ion of t he m at erials on record has opined t hat t heir appoint m ent was illegal 4 and void ab init io. We do not find any ground t o disagree wit h t he finding of t he St at e Com m it t ee. I n t he circum st ances, t he quest ion of regularisat ion of t heir services by invoking para 53 of t he j udgm ent in Um adevi ( 3) [ St at e of Karnat aka v. Um adevi ( 3) , ( 2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC ( L&S) 753] does not arise. Since t he appoint m ent of t he pet it ioners is ab init io void, t hey cannot be said t o be t he civil servant s of t he St at e. Therefore, holding disciplinary proceedings envisaged by Art icle 311 of t he Const it ut ion or under any ot her disciplinary rules shall not arise.” ( e m p h a si s su p p l i e d )

9. Hon’ble Suprem e Court t he case of M e g h m a l a & o t h e r s Vs. G. N a r a si m h a Re d d y & o t h e r s, report ed in ( 2 0 1 0 ) 8 SCC 3 8 3 , while laying down t he consequences of fraud by a part y, held as under: “ 2 8 . I t is set t led pr oposit ion of law t hat where an applicant get s an order/ office by m aking m isrepresent at ion or playing fraud upon t he com pet ent aut horit y, such order cannot be sust ained in t he eye of t he law. “ Fraud avoids all j udicial act s, ecclesiast ical or t em poral.” ( Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannat h [ ( 1994) 1 SCC 1 : AI R 1994 SC 853] .) I n Lazarus Est at es Lt d. v. Beasley [ ( 1956) 1 QB 702 : ( 1956) 2 WLR 502 : ( 1956) 1 All ER 341 ( CA) ] t he Court observed wit hout equivocat ion t hat : ( QB p. 712) “ No j udgm ent of a court , no order of a Minist er, can be allowed t o st and if it has been obt ained by fraud. Fraud unravels everyt hing.” 2 9 . I n A.P. St at e Financial Corpn. v. GAR ReRolling Mills [ ( 1994) 2 SCC 647 : AI R 1994 SC 2151] and St at e of Maharasht ra v. Prabhu [ ( 1994) 2 5 SCC 481 : 1994 SCC ( L&S) 676 : ( 1994) 27 ATC 116] t his Court observed t hat a writ court , while exercising it s equit able j urisdict ion, should not act as t o prevent perpet rat ion of a legal fraud as t he court s are obliged t o do j ust ice by prom ot ion of good fait h. “ Equit y is always known t o defend t he law from craft y evasions and new subt let ies invent ed t o evade law.” 3 0 . I n Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros. [ ( 1992) 1 SCC 534 : AI R 1992 SC 1555] it has been held as under : ( SCC p. 553, para 20) “ 20. Fraud and collusion vit iat e even t he m ost solem n proceedings in any civilised syst em of j urisprudence. I t is a concept descript ive of hum an conduct .” 3 1 . I n Unit ed I ndia I nsurance Co. Lt d. v. Raj endra Singh [ ( 2000) 3 SCC 581 : 2000 SCC ( Cri) 726 : AI R 2000 SC 1165] t his Court observed t hat “ Fraud and j ust ice never dwell t oget her” ( fraus et j us nunquam cohabit ant ) and it is a prist ine m axim which has never it s t em per over all t hese cent uries. 3 2 . The rat io laid down by t his Court in various cases is t hat dishonest y should not be perm it t ed t o bear t he fruit and benefit t o t he persons who played fraud or m ade m isrepresent at ion and in such circum st ances t he Court should not perpet uat e t he fraud. ( See Vizianagaram Social Welfare Resident ial School Societ y v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [ ( 1990) 3 SCC 655 : 1990 SCC ( L&S) 520 : ( 1990) 14 ATC 766] , Union of I ndia v. M. Bhaskaran [ 1995 Supp ( 4) SCC 100 : 1996 SCC ( L&S) 162 : ( 1996) 32 ATC 94] , Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangat han v. Girdharilal Yadav [ ( 2004) 6 SCC 325 : 2005 SCC ( L&S) 785] , St at e of Maharasht ra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing 6 Parm ar [ ( 2007) 1 SCC 80 : ( 2007) 1 SCC ( L&S) 5] , Him adri Chem icals I ndust ries Lt d. v. Coal Tar Refining Co. [ ( 2007) 8 SCC 110 : AI R 2007 SC 2798] and Mohd. I brahim v. St at e of Bihar [ ( 2009) 8 SCC 751 : ( 2009) 3 SCC ( Cri) 929] .) 3 3 . Fraud is an int rinsic, collat eral act , and fraud of an egregious nat ure would vit iat e t he m ost solem n proceedings of court s of j ust ice. Fraud is an act of deliberat e decept ion wit h a design t o secure som et hing, which is ot herwise not due. The expression “ fraud” involves t wo elem ent s, deceit and inj ury t o t he per son deceived. I t is a cheat ing int ended t o get an advant age. [ Vide Vim la ( Dr.) v. Delhi Adm n. [ AI R 1963 SC 1572 : ( 1963) 2 Cri LJ 434] , I ndian Bank v. Sat yam Fibres ( I ndia) ( P) Lt d. [ ( 1996) 5 SCC 550] , St at e of A.P. v . T. Suryachandra Rao [ ( 2005) 6 SCC 149 : AI R 2005 SC 3110] , K.D. Shar m a v. SAI L [ ( 2008) 12 SCC 481] and Cent ral Bank of I ndia v. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir [ ( 2008) 13 SCC 170 : ( 2009) 1 SCC ( L&S) 272] .] ”

10. Sim ilarly, in t he case of Re g i o n a l M a n a g e r , Ce n t r a l Ba n k o f I n d i a Vs. M a d h u l i k a Gu r u p r a sa d D a h i r & o t h e r s, report ed in ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 3 SCC 1 7 0 , Hon’ble Suprem e Court was dealing wit h t he case, where a person had obt ained appoint m ent on t he basis of a false cast e cert ificat e, and it was held t hat fraud vit iat es everyt hing and, t herefore, if a person has cont inued t o work on t he post for over 20 years, even t hen, having obt ained appoint m ent on t he basis of false and forged cast e cert ificat e, cannot claim any equit y or benefit on t hat basis. Paragraph nos.14, 15, 16, 17 & 18 of t he said j udgm ent are ext ract ed below: 7 “ 1 4 . Sim ilarly, t he regarding rendering of services for a long period has been considered and rej ect ed in a series of decisions of t his Court and we deem it unnecessary t o launch an exhaust ive dissert at ion on principles in t his cont ext . I t would suffice t o st at e t hat except in a few decisions, where t he adm ission/ appoint m ent was not cancelled because of peculiar fact ual m at rix obt aining t herein, t he consensus of j udicial opinion is t hat equit y, sym pat hy or generosit y has no place where t he original appoint m ent r est s on a false cast e cert ificat e. A person who ent ers t he service by producing a false cast e cert ificat e and obt ains appoint m ent t o t he post m eant for a Scheduled Cast e or Scheduled Tribe or OBC, t he case m ay be, deprives a genuine candidat e falling in eit her of t he cat egories, of appoint m ent t o t hat post , and does not deserve any sym pat hy or indulgence of t his Court . He who com es t o t he Court wit h a claim based on falsit y and decept ion cannot plead equit y nor t he Court would be j ust ified t o exercise equit y j ur isdict ion in his favour . 1 5 . An act of deliberat e decept ion wit h a design t o secure som et hing, which is ot herwise not due, t ant am ount s t o fraud. Fraud is a conduct eit her by let t er or words, which induces t he ot her person or aut horit y t o t ake a definit e det erm inat ive st and as a response t o t he conduct of t he form er eit her by words or let t er. ( See R. Vishwanat ha Pillai v. St at e of Kerala [ ( 2004) 2 SCC 105 : 2004 SCC ( L&S) 350] , Bank of I ndia [ ( 2005) 7 SCC 690 : 2005 SCC ( L&S) 1011] , BHEL [ ( 2007) 5 SCC 336 : ( 2007) 2 SCC ( L&S) 152] , Derry v. Peek [ ( 1889) 14 AC 337 : ( 1886- 90) All ER Rep 1 8 ( HL) ] , Ram Preet i Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and I nt erm ediat e Educat ion [ ( 2003) 8 SCC 311] and Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. St at e of Maharasht ra [ ( 2005) 7 SCC 605] .) 1 6 . I n Ram Chandr a Singh v. Savit ri Devi [ ( 2003) 8 SCC 319] t his Court had observed t hat is anat hem a t o all equit able principles and any affair t aint ed wit h fraud cannot be perpet uat ed or saved by t he applicat ion of any equit able doct rine. 1 7 . Recent ly, in St at e of Maharasht ra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parm ar [ ( 2007) 1 SCC 80 : ( 2007) 1 SCC ( L&S) 5] dealing wit h a sim ilar sit uat ion, t his Court has observed t hus: ( SCC p. 89, para 23) “ 23. The m akers of t he Const it ut ion laid em phasis on equalit y am ongst cit izens. The Const it ut ion I ndia provides for prot ect ive discrim inat ion and reservat ion t o enable t he disadvant aged group t o com e on t he sam e plat form as t hat of t he forward com m unit y. I f and when a person t akes advant age t he beneficent provision of t he Const it ut ion by obt aining t he benefit s of reservat ion and ot her benefit s provided under t he President ial Order alt hough he is not ent it led t heret o, he not only plays a fraud on t he societ y but in effect and subst ance plays a fraud on t he Const it ut ion. When, t herefore, a cert ificat e is grant ed t o a person who is not ot herwise ent it led t heret o, it is ent irely incorrect t o cont end t hat t he St at e shall be helpless spect at or in t he m at t er.” 9 1 8 . Having considered t he m at t er in t he light of t he aforest at ed legal posit ion, in our j udgm ent , t he decision of t he High Court is unt enable. As not ed supra, t he em ployee having accept ed t he finding of t he Scrut iny Com m it t ee, holding t hat t he cast e cert ificat e furnished by t he em ployee was false, t he very foundat ion of her appoint m ent vanished and her appoint m ent was rendered illegal. Her conduct renders her unfit t o be cont inued in service and m ust necessarily ent ail t erm inat ion of her service. Under t hese circum st ances, t here is absolut ely no j ust ificat ion for her claim in respect of t he post m erely on t he ground t hat she had worked on t he post for over t went y years. The post was m eant for a reserved candidat e but she usurped t he sam e by m isrepresent at ion and decept ion. I n our opinion, t he t hat cast e cert ificat e was referred t o t he Scrut iny Com m it t ee verificat ion aft er t en years of her j oining t he service and a long t im e was t aken by t he Scrut iny Com m it t ee t o verify t he sam e is of no consequence inasm uch as delay on bot h t he count s does not validat e t he cast e cert ificat e and t he consequent illegal appoint m ent .”

11. Respondent was t erm inat ed on t he ground t hat he secured appoint m ent on forged BTC Cert ificat e. BTC Cert ificat e furnished by respondent at t he t im e of his appoint m ent was sent for verificat ion t o t he Deput y Regist rar, Exam inat ion Regulat ory Aut horit y, U.P. and t he Deput y Regist rar inform ed t he Dist rict Educat ion Officer ( Elem ent ary) Udham Singh Nagar t hat no such cert ificat e of t raining was issued by his office. Thereaft er, respondent was give not ice asking him t o 10 show cause wit hin t en days and t hereaft er t he t im e given t o respondent for showing cause was ext ended for anot her fift een days, however, respondent did not respond t o t he not ice issued t o him from t im e t o t im e.

12. Thus respondent him self is t o be blam ed for not responding t o t he show cause not ice and t he only inference which can be drawn against him is t hat he was not possessed of BTC qualificat ion which essent ial qualificat ion for appoint m ent as Prim ary School Teacher.

13. I n view of t he legal posit ion as discussed above, t he prot ect ion of Art icle 311 of t he Const it ut ion of I ndia would not be available t o t he respondent . Thus, t he j udgm ent rendered by learned Single Judge is int erferable.

14. For t he aforesaid reasons, we set aside t he im pugned j udgm ent dat ed 01.05.2017. Thus, t he special appeal is allowed. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 22.07.2025 SS SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd12 9a8a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2 B7D72C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH 11