Dismissed¶¶27

Arvind Kumar Prasad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2025WRIA/13375/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assistant Teacher termination order 9.4.2021; fraudulent appointment void ab initio; high school mark-sheet purchased from Bihar; B.T.C. degree obtained after change of name and caste; complaint by Chandan Kumar; suspension 3.12.2019; charge sheet 23.6.2020; inquiry dated 28.1.2021; no notice or opportunity of hearing; FIR dated 12.4.2021; arrest 3.1.2022 delay; relied on Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari (Writ-A 20140/2023) and Satyaveer Singh (Writ-A 48129/2017); writ dismissed; Allahabad High Court; Manju Rani Chauhan J.; 17.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

The Court stated that the law is well-settled on this issue: fraudulent appointments are void ab initio and must be set aside, regardless of the consequences. ¶¶24

Arvind Kumar Prasad vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned termination order dated 9.4.2021 passed by respondent no.4 should be quashed on the petitioner's ground that no notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to him. +1 more

¶¶18

Court's answer

In view of the settled position and the similar controversies already decided by this Court, no interference with the impugned termination order was required.

¶¶26

Ratio / Principle

The Court stated that the law is well-settled on this issue: fraudulent appointments are void ab initio and must be set aside, regardless of the consequences.

¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.), decision dated 17.09.2025 — WRIT - A No. 13375 of 2025, Arvind Kumar Prasad v. State of U.P. & 3 Others. The petitioner, appointed Assistant Teacher at Primary School Jeevkar, Block-Gagaha, Gorakhpur on 26.8.2016 (joined 29.8.2016) pursuant to respondent no.3's advertisement for 16448 posts, was terminated by respondent no.4's order dated 9.4.2021 following a complaint by Chandan Kumar that his high school mark-sheet was purchased from Bihar and his B.T.C. degree obtained after change of name and caste. Procedural antecedents: notices 9.1.2019, appearance 18.1.2019 with deposition of certificates, suspension 3.12.2019, charge sheet 23.6.2020. Petitioner contended no charge sheet/show cause notice was served and the impugned order passed without notice or hearing; his challenge was delayed by an FIR dated 12.4.2021 and his arrest on 3.1.2022. Respondents reported a detailed inquiry dated 28.1.2021 with verification from the concerned School and University, concluding the appointment was procured through forged certificates. The Court, invoking the settled position that fraudulent appointments are void ab initio and relying on its own decisions in Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari (Writ-A No. 20140 of 2023, dt. 25.08.2025) and Satyaveer Singh (Writ-A No. 48129 of 2017, dt. 12.9.2025), held no interference was required and dismissed the petition.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 13375 of 2025

Arvind Kumar Prasad

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Respon
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Court No. - 52

¶9

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶10

List is revised. None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

¶11

Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶12

Records shows that the present petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned termination order dated 9.4.2021 passed by respondent no.4 and a further prayer to direct the respondents to pay all the arrears of salary along with consequential benefits.

¶13

As per the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed pursuant to the advertisement inviting application for the post of Assistant Teacher for 16448 vacancies as issued by respondent no.3. The petitioner had passed high school examination in the year 2002 having roll no.662 from M.V. High School, Mohammadpur, Bihar, wherein date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 2.8.1987. The petitioner passed his intermediate examination in the year 2004 from Rajendra College Chhapra from Bihar Intermediate Education Council with roll no.10274 and graduation in the year 2007 from Rajendra College Chhapra affiliated from Jai Prakash Vishwavidyalaya, Chhapra and D.L.Ed from Pt. H.S.S.P.S. Jayati Beleghat Gorakhpur in the year 2015. He also qualified U.P.T.E.T. in the year 2015 with roll no.5210100091. The respondent no.4 appointed the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School Jeevkar, Block- Gagaha, District- Gorakhpur on 26.8.2016,

¶14

WRIA No. 13375 of 2025

¶15

¶16

pursuant to which, he joined his duty on 29.8.2016

¶17

A complaint was made by one Chandan Kumar against the petitioner with the allegations that he has purchased his high school mark-sheet from Bihar and the B.T.C. degree has also been obtained by the petitioner after changing his name and caste. The aforesaid mark-sheets and degree have been utilized for the purposes of selection on the post of Assistant Teacher. Notices were issued to the petitioner on the aforesaid complaint on 9.1.2019 and the petitioner appeared before the respondent no.4 on 18.1.2019 and deposited all his educational certificates in the office of respondent no.4. On 3.12.2019, the petitioner was placed under suspension by respondent no.4 and an inquiry officer was appointed for conducting a department inquiry, after which a charge sheet was submitted on 23.6.2020, to which the petitioner was asked to submit a reply within a week.

¶18

No charge sheet or show cause notice was ever served to the petitioner at any point of time and he had not submitted any reply against the charge sheet or the show cause notice issued against him. The order impugned has been passed on 9.4.2021, without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and a first information report was also lodged against the him. The petitioner was arrested on 3.1.2022, pursuant to the first information report dated 12.4.2021, therefore, there is delay in challenging the impugned termination order dated 9.4.2021. The ground taken in the petition for quashing the impugned order is that no notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State submit that after a detailed inquiry regarding the high school certificate, which has been obtained from Bihar as well as BTC certificate, which has been obtained after changing name and caste, it was found that the petitioner has obtained appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher on the basis of aforesaid forged certificates, therefore, has played fraud.

¶20

They further submit that a detailed opportunity was provided to the petitioner but he did not appear before the authorities concerned to

¶21

WRIA No. 13375 of 2025

¶22

¶23

submitted any reply. After a detailed inquiry dated 28.1.2021 and the verification from the concerned authorities i.e. the School and the University from where the high school and BTC certificates have been obtained, the order impugned has been passed, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. Nothing has been placed on record also to show that the high school as well as BTC certificates of the petitioner are genuine.

¶24

The law is well-settled on this issue with numerous judicial pronouncements emphasizing the importance of integrity and honesty in public appointments. Court have consistently held that fraudulent appointments are void ab initio and must be set aside, regardless of the consequences.

¶25

Similar controversy has already been decided by this Court in Writ - A No. - 20140 of 2023 (Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others) as decided on 25.08.2025 as well as in Writ - A No. - 48129 of 2017 (Satyaveer Singh vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others) as decided on 12.9.2025.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid, no interference is required by this Court.

¶27

The present petition is dismissed , accordingly.

¶28

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶29

September 17, 2025 Kalp Nath Singh

¶30

Digitally signed by :- KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Termination order dated 9.4.2021 passed by respondent no.4, terminating the petitioner's services as Assistant Teacher (appointment cancelled).¶¶12
Respondent no.4 · 9.4.2021
Prior proceeding
Advertisement issued by respondent no.3 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teacher for 16448 vacancies, pursuant to which the petitioner was appointed.¶¶13
Prior proceeding
Petitioner appointed by respondent no.4 as Assistant Teacher in Primary School Jeevkar, Block-Gagaha, District-Gorakhpur, on 26.8.2016.¶¶13
Prior proceeding
Petitioner joined duty on 29.8.2016 pursuant to the said appointment.¶¶16
Prior proceeding
Complaint by one Chandan Kumar alleging that the petitioner had purchased his high school mark-sheet from Bihar and had obtained his B.T.C. degree after changing his name and caste.¶¶17
Prior proceeding
Notices were issued to the petitioner on the complaint on 9.1.2019; he appeared before respondent no.4 on 18.1.2019 and deposited his educational certificates in respondent no.4's office.¶¶17
Prior proceeding
Petitioner placed under suspension by respondent no.4 on 3.12.2019; an inquiry officer appointed for a departmental inquiry; charge sheet submitted on 23.6.2020 asking for a reply within a week.¶¶17
Prior proceeding
According to the petitioner's averments, no charge sheet or show cause notice was ever served on him and he submitted no reply.¶¶18
Prior proceeding
FIR lodged against the petitioner; he was arrested on 3.1.2022 pursuant to the FIR dated 12.4.2021, which accounted for the delay in challenging the termination order dated 9.4.2021.¶¶18
Prior proceeding
Submission of learned counsel for the respondents and the learned Standing Counsel: detailed inquiry established that the petitioner obtained appointment as Assistant Teacher on the basis of forged high-school and BTC certificates and thereby played fraud.¶¶19
Prior proceeding
Respondents further submitted that after a detailed inquiry dated 28.1.2021 and verification from the concerned School and University, the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's appointment was passed; nothing on record showed the certificates genuine.¶¶23

Arvind Kumar Prasad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Prasad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raj Shankar Arya and 10 Others vs State of Up and 4 Others

Deepak Bansal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ashok Kumar Sahu and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Meena Kumari vs State of Up and 3 Others

Rakesh Kumar @ Sippatar vs State of Up and Another