Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court

“A person who secures public employment by fraud cannot claim equity or constitutional protection”—Allahabad High Court Allahabad High Court (Bench of Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Manju Rani Chauhan) delivered a significant verdict in Writ-A No. 10029 of 2025 (Krishna Kant v. State of U.P. and 2 Others), upholding the termination of a government teacher appointed in 1998 on compassionate grounds after finding that the appointment was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation of legal heirship.

The Court ruled that the petitioner, Krishna Kant, was not the biological son of the deceased government servant Smt. Sumitra Devi, as claimed in the appointment application, but rather the son of another woman, Yashoda Devi, who was also the wife of the petitioner's father. The High Court held that fraudulent appointment on the basis of falsified legal heir certificates and affidavits renders the appointment a nullity, and no right can accrue from it under Article 311 or any service rule.

“Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal”—quoted the Court from S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, affirming that the entire appointment process was void ab initio.

Appointment in 1998 on Compassionate Grounds—Sister’s Complaint Triggers Inquiry Two Decades Later

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Basic Education Department on March 31, 1998, claiming to be the son of Late Smt. Sumitra Devi, a teacher who died in harness in 1990. The appointment was made under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

In 2020, a complaint by Snehlata @ Sunita, daughter of the deceased, alleged that the petitioner was not Sumitra Devi’s son, but the son of Yashoda Devi, another wife of Natheram (the petitioner’s father). The complaint led to an inquiry by the National Human Rights Commission, multiple FIRs under sections including 420, 467, 468, 471, 193 IPC, and disciplinary action culminating in the order dated July 4, 2025, cancelling the petitioner’s appointment.

Earlier, in 2021, the petitioner was terminated without inquiry, but the High Court quashed that order in March 2024, directing a fresh disciplinary inquiry. After completion of the inquiry, the appointment was again declared invalid through the impugned order.

“Fraudulent Documents Cannot Confer Legitimacy—Legal Heir and Succession Certificates Ignored for Suppression of Facts”

The key finding of the Court was that the legal heir certificate and affidavit submitted by the petitioner's father in 1998 falsely listed Krishna Kant as Sumitra Devi's son, while suppressing the existence of Yashoda Devi and her children. The Court held that:

“The succession certificate and affidavit relied upon were based on suppression of material facts—there is no requirement to formally cancel such documents once fraud is established; they are void ab initio” [Paras 76–80].

The Court extensively referred to judgments such as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh and A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P., reiterating the principle that “fraud unravels everything”, and that documents procured by fraud are unenforceable even without formal cancellation.

It also emphasized that disciplinary authority is not bound to honour such certificates if they are obtained by deceit, and may ignore them if official service records and witness statements disprove their validity.

“Compassionate Appointment Secured by Suppressing the Existence of Step-Sisters—Fraud Defeats Equity and Tenure”

One of the pivotal aspects examined was the petitioner’s failure to disclose the existence of Sumitra Devi’s biological daughters, Snehlata and Anita, who were minors at the time of her death and were allegedly deprived of their rights by the petitioner’s fraudulent claim.

The Court observed: “There is no material to demonstrate that the daughters of Smt. Sumitra Devi furnished any consent or ‘No Objection’ for the petitioner to be appointed… Such deliberate concealment constitutes fraud upon the employer” [Para 107].

Notably, the appointment was made while the petitioner’s father was still employed as a government servant, contrary to the rules of the Dying in Harness Scheme. This further invalidated the eligibility for compassionate appointment, as Rule 5(1) of the 1974 Rules requires that the spouse of the deceased should not be in government service.

“Protection under Article 311 Is Not Available Where Entry into Service Is Fraudulent—No Inquiry Needed to Cancel a Void Appointment”

The Court clarified that protection under Article 311 of the Constitution (which protects civil servants from arbitrary dismissal) is not available to someone whose very entry into service was illegal or void.

“Protection under Article 311 is available only to validly appointed employees—appointment obtained by fraud is void ab initio; cancellation thereof does not amount to punitive dismissal” [Paras 102–103].

Thus, the Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the absence of a formal disciplinary procedure invalidated the cancellation. The Court held that the cancellation of a void appointment is not a punishment, but merely a declaration of non-entitlement, citing R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran.

Petitioner’s Conduct: “Repeated Non-Cooperation, Suppression, and Shifting Stands”

The judgment also highlighted that despite multiple opportunities, the petitioner deliberately avoided inquiry proceedings, submitted belated documents, and did not produce any credible evidence to substantiate his claim as a legal heir.

The Court observed: “The petitioner has gone to reprehensible lengths to mislead this Court at every stage and has unscrupulously attempted to hoodwink officers of various departments… such conduct strikes at the very root of justice” [Para 50].

The Court found the entire approach of the petitioner as a calculated abuse of judicial process, and his writ petition as a mischievous attempt to prolong illegal benefits obtained through deceit.

No Relief for Fraud—Salary, Pension, and Benefits Recoverable

In addition to upholding the termination, the Court held that all salary, pension, and benefits drawn under the fraudulent appointment are recoverable, and directed initiation of appropriate proceedings. It reiterated the law that:

“Any salary or emoluments already paid pursuant to such fraudulent appointment are liable to be recovered from the delinquent individual, since no person can be permitted to enrich himself by perpetrating fraud on the State” [Para 96].

Thus, the recovery initiated against both the petitioner and his father was held to be legally sustainable.

Writ Dismissed—Appointment Declared Void From Inception

Summing up, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Krishna Kant, holding that:

“The compassionate appointment secured by the petitioner is the outcome of deliberate suppression of material facts and misrepresentation, and therefore, the appointment is void ab initio. No right, much less a constitutional protection under Article 311, can be claimed on the foundation of fraud” [Para 108].

The Court lauded its Research Associate for meticulous assistance and reaffirmed that equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked by a person with unclean hands.

Date of Decision: 17 October 2025