Dealing with the issue of fraudulent appointments in the state’s education sector, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by an Assistant Teacher whose service was terminated after 15 years upon the discovery of forged documents. While dismissing the plea, the Court issued a mandamus directing the State Government to undertake a comprehensive, time-bound scrutiny of Assistant Teacher appointments across Uttar Pradesh.
The bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, in the case of Garima Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others, observed a “disturbing pattern” of teachers securing jobs through fabricated documents in collusion with education officials.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Garima Singh, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on July 27, 2010, and was posted at Uchchatar Prathmik Vidyalaya, Bardiha Dalpat, Vikas Khand-Salempur, District Deoria. She had been serving for nearly 15 years.
The District Basic Education Officer (BSA), Deoria, passed an order on August 6, 2025, cancelling her appointment. The petitioner challenged this order, seeking reinstatement and arguing that her documents had been duly scrutinized at the time of her joining and that she had an unblemished service record.
Arguments Before the Court
The Petitioner’s Stance: Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tej Prakash Mishra, argued that the petitioner had been working since 2010 without any complaints. He contended that the verification of documents after 15 years, allegedly based on a complaint by a relative, was arbitrary. The primary ground of challenge was the violation of principles of natural justice, claiming the impugned order was passed without providing proper notice or an opportunity of hearing.
The Respondent’s Stance: Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, counsel for the Respondent-BSA, submitted that a detailed order was passed following verification by the competent authority and the Special Task Force (STF). The investigation revealed that the educational documents and domicile certificate submitted by the petitioner were forged and actually belonged to another individual named Garima Singh.
The respondent argued that a notice dated July 2, 2025, was issued to the petitioner, but she failed to reply or provide genuine documents. Relying on settled legal principles, the counsel argued that “no opportunity of hearing or detailed inquiry is warranted in cases where an appointment has been secured by practicing fraud.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court considered the arguments and referred to previous judgments, including Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari vs. State of U.P. and Krishna Kant vs. State of U.P., which established that a beneficiary of fraud cannot demand an inquiry under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
During the proceedings, when the Court began dictating the order, the petitioner’s counsel sought to withdraw the petition to avail the alternative remedy of appeal. However, the Court rejected this request, noting that the existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar when the plea is based on the denial of an opportunity of hearing.
Justice Chauhan made strong observations regarding the state of affairs in the Basic Education Department:
“This Court… has repeatedly noticed a disturbing pattern wherein a large number of Assistant Teachers have secured appointments on the strength of forged and fabricated certificates, fake documents, or by deliberate concealment of material facts. Such persons continue to remain in service for years together, openly in collusion with the management of the institutions and, in many cases, with the active connivance or tacit approval of the concerned Basic Shiksha Adhikari.”
The Court further remarked that the inaction of authorities “perpetuates fraud” and “strikes at the very root of the education system.”
The Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Garima Singh, declining to interfere with the cancellation of her appointment.
Furthermore, ostensibly to uphold the rule of law and protect public interest, the Court issued the following directions:
- Mandamus Issued: The Court directed the Principal Secretary, Basic Education, to undertake a “comprehensive and time-bound scrutiny of the appointments of Assistant Teachers across the State.”
- Action Against Fraud: Strict legal action, including cancellation of appointments and recovery of salary, must be taken against teachers found to have obtained employment through fraud.
- Accountability of Officials: The Court ordered “stringent disciplinary and penal action” against officials found to have colluded with, abetted, or deliberately ignored such fraudulent appointments.
- Timeline: The entire exercise is to be completed expeditiously, preferably within six months.
The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to communicate the order to the Principal Secretary, Department of Basic Education, and the Principal Secretary (Law) for immediate compliance.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Garima Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
- Case No.: WRIT – A No. 19634 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Manju Rani Chauhan
- Counsel for Petitioner: Ram Badan, Tej Prakash Mishra
- Counsel for Respondent: Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi), C.S.C.
