Fraudulently Obtained Appointments Are Void Ab Initio And Do Not Entitle the Appointee to Any Hearing: Allahabad High Court Denies Relief to Assistant Teacher Accused of Forgery

“Fraud and justice never dwell together”— High Court Allahabad delivered a decisive ruling dismissing a writ petition filed by an Assistant Teacher whose appointment was terminated on the grounds of fraud. Justice Manju Rani Chauhan ruled that an appointment obtained by deception is “void ab initio” and that no inquiry under service rules is necessary before its cancellation.

The judgment reiterates the settled position of law that an individual securing a government post by fraudulent means does not acquire any enforceable right and cannot claim protection under the garb of natural justice or procedural fairness.

“Once Fraud Is Established, There Is No Requirement of a Regular Departmental Inquiry”

The case originated from the petitioner’s appointment as an Assistant Teacher on 10.08.2010, which remained unchallenged for nearly a decade. However, proceedings were initiated following a complaint by one Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, alleging impersonation and misuse of his educational documents. The petitioner, claiming to be Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari, was accused of having used the complainant’s certificates to obtain his teaching post.

In response, the District Basic Education Officer issued several notices requiring the petitioner to produce original documents. Despite receiving the final notice dated 06.06.2022 and appearing before the authority on 13.06.2022, the petitioner failed to establish the authenticity of his documents.

The authorities, relying on a verification report from the Superintendent of Police, Ballia, concluded that the petitioner’s claimed residential address was fictitious, stating:

“कमलेश कुमार पुत्र रामटहल निवासी पता हल्दीरामपुर, थाना-उभांव, जनपद-बलिया का सत्यापन किया गया तो इस ग्राम पता का कोई व्यक्ति हल्दीरामपुर में नहीं रहता है।”

Subsequently, the petitioner’s appointment was cancelled by an order dated 06.10.2022, with a direction for recovery of the entire salary paid during his tenure.

“Fraud Vitiates Everything, Including Continuity of Service and Right to Hearing”

The petitioner challenged the cancellation, arguing that he was not served the impugned order and was denied the benefit of a full departmental inquiry. He contended that discrepancies in his name—appearing as Kamlesh Kumar in the PAN card, Kamlesh in Aadhar, and Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari in academic records—were inadvertent and attributable to administrative error.

The Court, however, firmly rejected these contentions, observing:

“The petitioner has used the documents of the complainant... He is not the person he is claiming to be, as is evident from his PAN Card, Aadhar Card, BTC Training Certificate, and academic documents.”

It further emphasized that when employment is obtained through forgery, no procedural safeguard such as departmental inquiry under U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 or protections under Article 311 of the Constitution can be invoked.

“An appointment obtained by fraud is non est. Fraud is anathema to all equitable principles, and any affair tainted with fraud could not be perpetuated or saved by application of any equitable doctrine.”

“Merely Continuing in Service for Years Cannot Cure a Fraudulent Entry into Service”

Justice Chauhan relied on landmark decisions including Union of India vs. M. Bhaskaran, Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi, Vijay Krishnarao Kurundkar vs. State of Maharashtra, and Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P., reiterating:

“Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the employer or could be recalled... Merely because the respondent employee has continued in service for a number of years cannot get any equity in his favour.”

The Court ruled that the discrepancies in name and documents, supported by the police verification report, clearly demonstrated that the appointment was procured through fraudulent means. In such cases, the requirement of a formal disciplinary process is bypassed, as the foundational act—the appointment itself—is illegal.

“There is no ‘termination’ in the strict sense, but only a declaration that no valid appointment ever existed.”

“No Right to Post or Salary When Appointment Is Void from the Inception”

Rejecting the plea for equitable relief or regularization of service, the Court concluded:

“Where a person secures appointment on the basis of a forged marksheet or certificate or appointment letter... such an appointment is illegal and void ab initio.”

It further directed that the petitioner had no right to salary, continuity of service, or other consequential benefits, and ordered that the entire amount received during his service tenure be recovered.

The claim that the petitioner was unaware of certain departmental communications was also dismissed. The Court held that the principles of natural justice are flexible and cannot be invoked where fraud is proven on the face of the record:

“Natural justice cannot be put into a straitjacket formula... Fraud and justice never dwell together.”

“Person Who Never Had a Legal Entry into Service Is Not Entitled to Exit Protection of Law”

The Allahabad High Court concluded its judgment by reiterating that allowing such fraudulent appointments to persist would erode public trust in government hiring systems and severely compromise administrative integrity.

“The forgery committed by the petitioner, for obtaining public employment on the basis of forged educational documents... vitiates the process of his appointment.”

Thus, the Court found no illegality in the cancellation order dated 06.10.2022, dismissed the writ petition, and upheld the government’s decision in full.

Date of Decision: 25 August 2025