Alleged Incorrect Information Supplied By Candidate Doesn’t Affect His Eligibility To Appear In Exam: Supreme Court Upholds Teacher’s Appointment
The Supreme Court set aside the Order of the High Court, which had dismissed an Appeal against the Order declaring the Appellant’s appointment as illegal.
The Supreme Court allowed an Appeal against the High Court Order, which had declared the appointment of a teacher as ‘illegal,’ while remarking that the alleged incorrect information supplied by a candidate doesn’t affect his eligibility to appear in an examination.
The Court set aside the impugned Order of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court, which had dismissed an Appeal against the Order terminating the Appellant’s services. The issue pertained to the appointment to the post of Intermediate Trained Assistant Teacher, wherein the Appellant was declared successful based on his merit. However, the Respondent had argued that the appointment of the Appellant was based on manipulation in the TET examination certificate, wherein the allegation was that the Appellant had shown his caste status as Most Backward Class (MBC) in the TET certificate, but as Backward Class (BC) in the selection process.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra remarked, “It is an admitted position that neither at the time of TET examination nor in the present recruitment, the appellant has secured undue advantage or favour by showing his caste status as ‘MBC’ or ‘BC’ as the case may be. It is also an admitted position…that in the relevant year the cutoff marks for clearing TET examination were same for ‘BC’ and ‘MBC’ categories. Likewise in the present recruitment the appellant has secured more marks than respondent no.1. He has not obtained any weightage of marks or relaxation by claiming to be belonging to ‘BC’ category which is his actual caste category.”
AOR Himanshu Chaubey appeared for the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel represented the Respondents.
Arguments by the Appellant
The Appellant argued that he belonged to the BC-II category as per his caste certificate dated and the 'MBC' mention in the TET certificate by the Jharkhand Academic Council was an inadvertent mistake. The Appellant further argued that he had secured more marks than the Respondent in the selection process. He further contended that the discrepancy did not provide him any benefit, as the vacancy position under the 'BC' category was less than that of the 'MBC' category.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted, “The present is not a case where there is any allegation against the appellant either by the JAC or by the recruiting agency that the appellant has fraudulently declared his caste status as ‘MBC’ though he actually belongs to ‘BC’.”
The Court held that cancelling an appointment based on incorrect information (that didn't affect exam eligibility) cannot serve as the basis for challenging that same appointment due to alleged manipulation in the TET examination certificate.
“The writ petition was preferred on the allegation that the appellant has committed manipulation. However, there is no evidence that the appellant has committed any manipulation in the present recruitment process,” the Bench remarked.
The Court further noted, “It is not the case of the recruiting agency that the appellant has submitted any incorrect information while submitting his application form in the present recruitment. The original record contains the photocopies of the TET examination certificate submitted by the appellant and the original of which was submitted at the time of counselling. Thus, the appellant has not submitted any incorrect information at the time of counselling.”
“The recruiting agency has not cancelled the appellant’s appointment on the allegation of submitting incorrect information. It is for the recruiting agency to take action against any candidate if incorrect information is supplied. The same cannot be made a foundation for allowing the writ petition when the said information does not affect the candidate's eligibility to appear in the examination,” the Bench held.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Thus, in our considered view, the High Court has wrongly set aside the appellant’s appointment. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Shyam Nandan Mehta v. Santosh Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 586)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Himanshu Chaubey
Respondents: Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel; AOR Amit Sharma, Jayant Mohan, Ranjan Nikhil Dharnidhar, Sangeeta Singh and Amit Pawan; Advocates Ravi Kumar, Alok Kumar, Jayesh Gaurav, Ishwar Chandra Roy and Diksha Ojha