Appointment Obtained By Fraud Is Non Est; Holding Disciplinary Proceedings Would Not Arise: Allahabad High Court

The writ petition before the High Court was preferred against the order whereby the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher was rendered null and void, and a consequential direction for recovery of salary paid was issued.

The Single Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan asserted, “Thus, where a person secures appointment on the basis of a forged marksheet or certificate or appointment letter and on that basis he or she has been inducted in Government service then he/she becomes beneficiary of illegal and fraudulent appointment. Such an appointment is illegal and void ab initio. Therefore, holding disciplinary proceedings envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution of India or under any disciplinary rules including the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 or the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999, shall not arise.”

“An appointment obtained by fraud is non est. Fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud could not be perpetuated or saved by application of any equitable doctrine”, it added.

Advocate Anil Kumar Verma represented the Appellant, while Advocate Shashi Prakash Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case as put forth by the Petitioner was that he was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher and he discharged his duties honestly. Subsequently, the District Basic Education Officer issued a letter calling the petitioner to explain the documents produced at the time of appointment and also submit certain documents. The petitioner appeared before the Officer and submitted the relevant documents, i.e., his appointment letter, mark sheets and certificates of High School, Intermediate, Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) as well as BTC training certificate, and domicile certificate. Thereafter, an order came to be passed whereby the Petitioner's appointment was declared null and void ab initio. A direction was also passed for the recovery of the salary paid to him.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, reiterated the importance of integrity and honesty in public appointments. “Courts have consistently held that fraudulent appointments are void ab initio and must be set aside, regardless of the consequences”, it said while also adding, “Thus, the law in case of appointment obtained fraudulently is well settled. Fraudulently obtained order of appointment or approval can be recalled by the authority concerned. In such cases merely because the employee continued in service for a number of years, on the basis of fraudulently obtained orders, cannot create any equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer/authority. When an appointment or approval has been obtained by a person on the basis of forged documents, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer. It would create no equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer to cancel such appointment or approval since "Fraud and justice never dwell together."

The Bench also explained, “Appointments obtained through fraudulent means are considered void ab initio, meaning they are null and void from the beginning. Such appointments are not recognized by law, and the individual holding the appointment is not entitled to any benefits or protection. Any benefits obtained through fraudulent means, including salary, allowances, and other emoluments, must be returned to the employer or the State. The individual is not entitled to retain any benefits derived from a fraudulent appointment.”

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that a complaint was made alleging that the petitioner used the documents of the complainant, who had not come to join at the place where the petitioner joined, as he was given an appointment somewhere else. The complainant came to know that the petitioner was taking advantage of his educational certificates, as he had produced the same before the authorities to get an appointment, for which the petitioner was called to bring the original certificates, which he could not.

The Bench also found discrepancies in the documents, which raised concerns regarding the authenticity and validity of the documents and the petitioner's appointment. The petitioner had also failed to establish the authenticity of his academic documents, and discrepancies in his name across vital records revealed a prima facie case of fraud. “The petitioner's inability to produce genuine documents, coupled with the misuse of documents belonging to some other, i.e. Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, confirms that the appointment was obtained through fraudulent means”, it said.

The Bench noted that the documents of the complainant (who got selected somewhere else) had been used by the petitioner to obtain an appointment in place of the complainant, using his name. Dismissing the appeal, the Bench made it clear that his appointment was lawfully cancelled by the impugned order.

Cause Title: Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari v. State Of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:146583)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Anil Kumar Verma, Kamalesh Kumar Nishad,M.S. Chauhan, Ravindra Kumar Srivastava, Shriprakash Shrivastava

Respondent: Advocate Shashi Prakash Singh

Click here to read/download Order