Entering Higher Marks Than Actually Obtained Can’t Be Regularized Under Guise Of ‘Human Error’: Allahabad High Court Upholds Termination Order

The Allahabad High Court held that entering higher marks than actually obtained by the candidate in the application form cannot be regularised under the guise of ‘human error’.

The Court held thus in Writ Petitions challenging orders by which the services of the Petitioners were terminated on the ground of mentioning increased marks in the application forms submitted by them while applying for the posts of Assistant Teachers.

A Single Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed, “Applying the aforesaid settled principles, it is found that entering higher marks than actually obtained is not a mere clerical lapse but a deliberate act capable of altering the merit position, therefore it cannot be regularised under the guise of ‘human error’. Any undue advantage so obtained is illegal and vitiates the selection itself. This Court further notes that the settled position of law leaves no room for ambiguity. Entering marks higher than the candidate has actually secured is a conscious act that materially alters the candidate’s position in the merit list. Such conduct cannot be trivialised as a human error.”

The Bench said that a candidate who enters the selection process by misrepresenting material particulars, such as academic marks that constitute the very basis of merit-based recruitment, cannot invoke the equitable Doctrine of Estoppel.

Senior Advocates Ashok Khare, Siddharth Khare, Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, and Advocate Yatindra appeared for the Petitioners, while Advocate Archana Singh appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

The State Government had issued a Government Order in 2018, notifying the holding of Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination 2019 (ATRE) for the appointment against 69,000 posts of Assistant Teachers. The Petitioners being eligible for the said posts, applied pursuant to the said advertisement. They were issued admit cards for appearing in ATRE and thereafter, they participated in the same. The result was declared in 2020 wherein names of the Petitioners were shown as qualified candidates. Thereafter, the State Government issued a Government Order for consideration of the appointments of selected candidates as Assistant Teachers.

In pursuance thereof, the Petitioners applied for the appointment. In the final select list, they were shown to have been duly selected and were allotted District Kushinagar. After consideration of Petitioners’ cases, appointment orders were issued by the BSA (Basic Education Ofiicer) in favour of the Petitioners. Resultantly, they were given postings in their respective schools run by the U.P. Board of Basic Education. However, the Secretary Board of Basic Education terminated their services in May 2025 on the ground that the Petitioners had filled up higher marks in their application forms than they actually secured. This was under challenge before the High Court.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “It is a cardinal principle of service jurisprudence that fraud vitiates every solemn act. … One who approaches the authority with unclean hands, is not entitled to seek protection under any equitable principle. Public appointments must strictly conform to statutory norms and prescribed eligibility criteria. Where an applicant manipulates higher marks to obtain an undeserved advantage, the appointment becomes tainted from its inception.”

The Court enunciated that since there can be no estoppel against statute, the employer is empowered and indeed duty-bound to annul an appointment obtained in derogation of the recruitment rules, notwithstanding any administrative lapse or delay.

“The plea that the appointing authority had granted time to rectify the application form is misconceived. Such an opportunity is meant to correct bonafide clerical or inadvertent errors, not to sanitise a deliberate falsification of essential data. A procedural indulgence extended by the authority cannot be construed as a waiver of its right to scrutinise the veracity of the information furnished or to take action upon detection of misrepresentation. Even the issuance of an appointment letter does not confer any indefeasible or vested right to continue in service when the very foundation of the appointment is vitiated”, it said.

The Court observed that an employment secured by deceit is voidable at the instance of the employer, and neither length of service nor any administrative oversight can breathe legitimacy into an appointment that is tainted from the outset.

“The argument that the employer is now precluded from acting because it failed to detect the discrepancy earlier is equally untenable. Public employment is a matter of public trust, and the State is under a constitutional obligation to uphold the integrity of the selection process. An illegality does not ripen into a legal right merely because it remained unnoticed for some time”, it emphasised.

The Court further remarked that once the appointment is shown to have been procured by misrepresentation of marks, the employer is under no legal obligation to continue such appointment and since the very entry into service is tainted, the candidate cannot claim protection under Articles 14 or 311 of the Constitution of India.

“Permitting estoppel in such circumstances would undermine the sanctity of meritocracy, distort the selection process, and result in the displacement of genuinely more meritorious candidates. The doctrine of estoppel cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality or to defeat the legitimate expectations of eligible aspirants”, it added.

The Court was of the view that where a candidate deliberately enters marks higher than those actually secured, thereby placing himself/herself in a position of unwarranted advantage and ultimately securing appointment, such appointment cannot be termed legal or valid.

“Such an act, by any stretch of reasoning, cannot be treated as a mere human error or an inadvertent mistake, as it confers an undue advantage upon the candidate to the prejudice of other eligible aspirants and strikes at the very root of fairness and transparency in the selection process. The candidates’ act of furnishing inflated academic marks constitutes a material misrepresentation. Their subsequent appointment is, therefore, vitiated ab initio”, it also noted.

Conclusion

Moreover, the Court said that the opportunity given for rectification cannot absolve the candidates of intentional falsification and no estoppel can arise to protect an appointment that is fundamentally illegal.

“The very foundation of the appointment stands vitiated by misrepresentation. … In the facts at hand, it is an admitted position that the petitioners except Preeti, Manish Kumar Mahaur, Rinku Singh and Sweety Shokeen, deliberately inflated the marks obtained by them in their academic examinations while submitting their application forms for the posts of Assistant Teacher. Such inflation of marks placed them in an artificially enhanced position in the merit list, thereby enabling them to secure appointments to a public post to which they were not legitimately entitled”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions and refused to grant any relief to the Petitioners.

Cause Title- Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhary and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:225542)

Click here to read/download the Judgment