Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Different Certificates Not Fraud: Allahabad High Court Quashes Dismissal Order

The Court further clarified that the drastic consequence of annulment of appointment is a disproportionate response to an irregularity that does not result in prejudice to the employer or the selection process. While the non-disclosure of earlier certificates reflecting a different date of birth is not appreciated, it does not rise to the level of culpable suppression if the documents relied upon for the appointment are genuine and issued by competent authorities, the Bench noted.

Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed, “…no categorical or definitive finding has been recorded by the competent authority to the effect that the petitioner had deliberately relied upon the Madhyama certificate in substitution of the earlier High School certificate with a view to secure any undue benefit…In the absence of any such foundational finding, the mere existence of variance in the date of birth across different certificates pales into insignificance”.

Senior Advocate Ashok Khare appeared for the petitioner and Shashi Prakash Singh, C.S.C appeared for the respondent.

In the matter, the petitioner, Vijai Kumar Yadav, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in August 08, 2014 after qualifying through the Purva Madhyama, Uttar Madhyama, and Shastri examinations, followed by the Basic Training Certificate (BTC) and the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET).

His service continued without complaint until 2018, when a third party sought his educational records under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This inquiry revealed that a scholar register from 1994-95 and a High School certificate from 1998 recorded his date of birth as July 02, 1984, whereas the Purva Madhyama certificate used for his subsequent qualifications and appointment recorded it as July 07, 1987.

Following a complaint in 2019, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA) of Mau instituted an inquiry into these discrepancies. Despite the petitioner furnishing a detailed reply and self-attested copies of his credentials, the BSA issued an order on June 27, 2019, dismissing the petitioner from service and directing the lodging of a First Information Report (FIR) against him.

The petitioner subsequently moved the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the dismissal, arguing that the High School certificate in question was never produced or relied upon by him for any official purpose or benefit.

The Court observed that the respondents’ case rested solely on the divergence of dates, yet there was no allegation that any of the petitioner's degrees were forged or fabricated. The Court applied the doctrine of proportionality, stating that judicial review must be guided by the absence of prejudice; since the petitioner was eligible under both dates of birth, no tangible advantage had accrued to him.

The Bench noted that for non-disclosure to constitute misconduct, it must be shown to be purposeful, calculated, and actuated by a clear intent to deceive, rather than being a mere omission of an irrelevant record.

“It is a settled principle that Courts do not adjudicate upon abstract or hypothetical questions which do not directly impact the lis. Since the respondents themselves have not returned any finding attributing motive or advantage to the petitioner on account of the alleged discrepancy, this Court finds no occasion to enter into an elaborate examination of the said issue”, the Bench noted.

“So far as the issue pertaining to the discrepancy in the date of birth is concerned, and the question as to which certificate ought to be accorded primacy for the purposes of recording the date of birth, this Court finds that the same does not arise for substantive adjudication in the present lis”, it further noted.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the dismissal order dated June 27, 2019, and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to resume his duties forthwith.

However, the Court applied the principle of "no work, no pay", holding that the petitioner is not entitled to salary for the intervening period during which he did not discharge his duties. The Court further provided that the respondents may initiate fresh proceedings should any foundational document be found false or non-genuine in the future.

Cause Title: Vijai Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 others. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:80471)

Appearances:

Petitioner: Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate and Siddharth Khare, Advocate.

Respondent: Shashi Prakash Singh, C.S.C, Shailendra Singh, Standing Counsel, Syed Nadeem Ahmad, Advocate.

Click here to read/download the Judgment