Tenancy Law | Residence for Convenience Does Not Make You a Tenant: Bombay High Court Void Marriages Confer No Pension Rights: Bombay High Court Rules Nomination Cannot Override Legal Heirship Single Blow Doesn't Prove Intent to Kill: Madhya Pradesh High Court—Reduces Attempted Murder Conviction in Amputation Case Arbitrators Can Order Discovery on Unsold Plots for Fair Dispute Resolution: Delhi High Court Vague Dowry Allegations Can't Lead to Criminal Trial," Rules Allahabad High Court—Quashes Case Against Husband and In-Laws NDPS | Heroin: A Severe Public Health Threat, Not Just a Drug: Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Foreign National No Inheritance Beyond Immediate Family: Himachal High Court Upholds Eviction, Imposes ₹500 Daily Charges for Illegal Occupation No Jail for Guntur Municipal Commissioner: AP High Court Allows Rent-Tax Adjustment in Contempt Case POCSO | Modesty of a Child is Her Right: Madhya Pradesh High Cour Uphold Conviction for Molestation of 11-Year-Old Fraud Nullifies All Rights: Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Dismissal of Teachers with Fake Degrees Adoption Without Legal Process Does Not Constitute Kidnapping: Jharkhand High Court Meetings Alone Do Not Prove Conspiracy: Karnataka High Court Acquits Two in Terror Conspiracy Case Kerala High Court Rejects Fraud Allegation in Property Dispute, Upholds Return of ₹45 Lakhs Advance Payment Courts Must Prioritize Merits Over Technicalities: Punjab & Haryana High Court Allows Additional Evidence in Property Dispute Non-Executant in Possession Need Not Pay Ad Valorem Court Fee for Declaration of Fraudulent Deeds: P&H HC Three-Month Imprisonment or Fine for Touting: Advocates (Amendment) Act, 2023 Sets New Penalties for Legal Misconduct

Fraud Nullifies All Rights: Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Dismissal of Teachers with Fake Degrees

05 October 2024 4:38 PM

By: sayum


Uttarakhand High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by teachers whose services were terminated after it was discovered that they had secured appointments using forged degrees. The court upheld the termination orders, ruling that appointments obtained through fraud are void ab initio and do not confer any rights, including protection under Article 311 of the Indian Constitution.

"Fraud Unravels All," Rules High Court, Citing Supreme Court Precedents

Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari cited several Supreme Court rulings to assert that fraud nullifies any legal claim or employment rights. He emphasized:

"A person who secures an appointment by producing forged certificates cannot claim any right to continue in service, and fraud vitiates everything, including appointments."

The petitioners, including Vikram Singh Negi, were appointed as teachers in various government schools in Uttarakhand. They were dismissed after investigations revealed that their educational certificates, primarily their B.Ed. degrees, were fake. The government took action following complaints and a Special Investigation Team (SIT) verified the credentials with universities. The universities confirmed that many of the degrees submitted by the petitioners were not issued by them.

The dismissed teachers challenged the termination orders, arguing that they had worked for several years and should have been given the protection of Article 311, which mandates due process before dismissing a government servant.

The petitioners contended that their termination was illegal as no proper disciplinary inquiry was conducted. They claimed that they had not been given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or defend themselves properly during the inquiry process. They also argued that their long tenure as teachers warranted equitable consideration.

The court rejected the petitioners' arguments, holding that since they had secured their appointments through fraudulent means, they had no legal right to hold their posts. The court cited the Supreme Court’s decisions in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy, which established that appointments obtained through fraud are null and void, and those who commit such fraud cannot claim legal protection.

The court also pointed out that the inquiry conducted by the SIT and the universities was thorough and that the petitioners failed to provide any credible evidence to prove that their degrees were genuine.

Teachers Cannot Be Allowed to Continue on Fraudulent Basis

Dismissing the petitions, the court underscored that individuals who obtain government posts through fraudulent means cannot be allowed to continue, as this would set a bad precedent and compromise the integrity of the education system.

The court’s decision reaffirms the principle that fraudulent actions, particularly in securing public employment, nullify any claim to equity or continued employment.

Date of Decision: October 3, 2024

Vikram Singh Negi v. State of Uttarakhand & Others

 

Similar News