-
by Admin
18 December 2025 4:03 PM
“Furnishing Inflated Academic Marks Is Material Misrepresentation, Not a Trivial Mistake” – In a significant judgment on the sanctity of public recruitment processes, the Allahabad High Court has held that candidates who secure government appointments by misrepresenting academic marks in their application forms are not entitled to any protection under principles of equity or estoppel, and their appointments are liable to be cancelled ab initio, regardless of their length of service. However, the Court carved out a limited exception for certain candidates who were found to have made genuine errors that placed them at a disadvantage, and not in a position of advantage.
In this Case Petitioners challenged the termination of their services as Assistant Teachers appointed through the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination (ATRE) 2019, after they were found to have entered inflated academic marks in their online application forms.
The Court, presided by Justice Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, ruled 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.”
ATRE 2019 and Termination Orders
The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in 2020 after qualifying the ATRE 2019, held for filling 69,000 vacancies under the U.P. Basic Education Board. Upon verification of original academic records in 2025, discrepancies were noticed in their application forms — specifically, entries of higher marks than those actually secured.
On May 9 and May 21, 2025, the State Government issued directions terminating the services of such candidates whose selection was found to be tainted by inflated academic credentials. These orders were challenged by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that their errors were inadvertent, had been rectified, and in any case, could not justify termination after five years of continuous service.
Deliberate Misstatement of Marks Is Fraud, Not Human Error
The primary legal question was whether an applicant, who misstates academic marks while applying for public service, can retain their appointment on the plea of human error, especially after years of satisfactory service.
Rejecting the “human error” defence, the Court observed:“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.” [Para 31]
“Appointment 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.” [Para 33]
Estoppel Does Not Apply in Cases of Misrepresentation
Addressing the argument that the State is estopped from terminating the petitioners' services after allowing rectification via affidavits and later issuing appointment orders, the Court held: “Fraud vitiates every solemn act. One who approaches the authority with unclean hands, is not entitled to seek protection under any equitable principle.” [Para 32]
“There can be no estoppel against statute; the employer is duty-bound to annul an appointment obtained in derogation of recruitment rules.” [Para 32]
Length of Service Irrelevant Where Entry Itself Is Illegal
The petitioners argued that their services, being five years old and unmarred by complaints, ought to be protected. The Court disagreed:
“An illegality does not ripen into a legal right merely because it remained unnoticed for some time. Once the appointment is shown to have been procured by misrepresentation of marks, the employer is under no legal obligation to continue such appointment.” [Para 34]
No Termination Where No Advantage Was Gained
Significantly, the Court differentiated between candidates who had gained advantage by inflated marks and those who were actually disadvantaged or whose entries were not material misstatements.
Candidates Preeti, Manish Kumar Mahaur, Rinku Singh, and Sweety Shokeen were found to fall in the latter category. Their errors were either the result of outdated mark-sheets, misunderstanding of how to enter marks (theory/practical split), or entries that actually lowered their merit position.
The Court ruled: “These petitioners did not mention higher marks than they actually possess. Their mistakes are bonafide and did not confer upon them any undue advantage. Hence, their termination cannot be sustained.” [Paras 24, 38, 40]
Accordingly, the termination orders in their cases were quashed, and the writ petitions allowed to that extent.
Legal Framework and Precedents Cited
The Court relied heavily on precedent from the Supreme Court and High Court, including:
The Court also noted that the Government Order dated 04.12.2020, and subsequent Circular dated 05.03.2021, categorically required cancellation of candidatures where inflated marks had conferred advantage, but allowed leniency only in disadvantaged cases.
No Room for Tainted Merit in Public Service
The High Court's judgment is a stern reaffirmation that public appointments must be rooted in transparency, merit, and fairness. It draws a clear line: where material misrepresentation alters the outcome of a competitive recruitment, no rectification, delay, or length of service can cure the illegality.
“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.” [Para 35]
Final Orders:
Writ-A No. 8766 of 2025: Allowed only for petitioner Sweety Shokeen; dismissed for others.
Date of Decision: December 16, 2025
