The Allahabad High Court has set aside the termination of an Assistant Teacher whose appointment under the Dependent of Freedom Fighter (DFF) category was cancelled due to a mismatch in certificate records. Justice Manju Rani Chauhan ruled that no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation was found against the petitioner, and the error appeared to be a clerical lapse on the part of the issuing authority.
Background
The petitioner, Nevtej Kumar Singh, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic School, Yadav Basti Chibbi, Ballia, under the DFF quota. He joined service on October 22, 2020. His appointment was based on a DFF certificate dated April 4, 2008, issued by the District Magistrate, Ballia.
However, during document verification, it was found that the serial number (Sl. No. 1114) mentioned on his certificate corresponded to a different individual — Harmeet Singh — in the district records. Consequently, the District Basic Education Officer, Ballia, terminated the petitioner’s services on July 31, 2021, citing submission of a forged document. He was also directed to refund the salary received during service.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Represented by Senior Advocate R.K. Ojha and Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal, the petitioner submitted that:
- He genuinely falls under the DFF category as a dependent of late freedom fighter Shubh Narain Singh.
- He was a minor at the time of issuance of the first certificate in 2008.
- Upon receiving the show cause notice in March 2021, he approached the issuing authority, which revalidated his DFF status by issuing a fresh certificate on April 1, 2021.
- The mismatch in serial numbers was due to a clerical error by the issuing office and not attributable to him.
- No element of suppression or misrepresentation was involved in his application or the use of the certificate.
Reliance was placed on the Lucknow Bench ruling in Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (Service Single No. 5312 of 2021, dated 25.11.2019), which dealt with similar issues of clerical errors not amounting to fraud.
Respondents’ Stand
The State, through its counsel, argued that:
- The petitioner obtained the appointment by enclosing a forged DFF certificate, which was not recorded at the said serial number.
- Despite being given an opportunity to prove the authenticity of the 2008 certificate, he produced a new certificate instead of justifying the old one.
- Fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings, and the appointment based on an incorrect certificate warranted termination.
Judgments cited in support included:
- State of Bihar v. Devendra Sharma, 2019
- Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, 2022
- Saurabh Srivastava v. State of U.P., 2024
Court’s Analysis
The Court framed the core question: whether the petitioner obtained public employment fraudulently or the error was due to the State’s administrative lapse.
Key observations:
- “Indisputably, the petitioner belongs to DFF category. Said fact is not questioned even by the respondent authorities at any stage.”
- “Impugned termination order does not refer any fraudulent exercise or submission of a forged document on the part of petitioner.”
- “Fraud must be proved by cogent evidence. Mere irregularity in issuance of a document by authority does not automatically amount to fraud or forgery on part of the recipient.”
The Court distinguished the judgments cited by the State, noting that they involved deliberate fraud, suppression, or false declarations — elements missing in the present case.
It also relied on the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Ahire Ajinkya Shankar v. Indian Coast Guard, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5726, which emphasized that clerical mismatches during verification do not automatically indicate fraud. Further, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, AIR 2016 SC 2237, was cited to assert that a State cannot penalize a candidate for its own administrative error if the candidate acted bona fide.
Conclusion and Decision
Holding that no fault was established on the part of the petitioner, the Court concluded:
“Issuance of a certificate to the petitioner owing to an error or oversight on the part of the competent authority cannot be construed as forgery, particularly when the said authority has later issued a rectified certificate acknowledging the mistake.”
The Court quashed the termination order dated July 31, 2021, and directed the District Basic Education Officer, Ballia, to reinstate the petitioner to his position as Assistant Teacher “forthwith.”
The writ petition was accordingly allowed. No order was made as to costs.
Case Title: Nevtej Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Others
Citation: 2025:AHC:130908
