MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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

 

Latest Legal News