The High Court at Allahabad has set aside an order dismissing an Assistant Teacher from service, ruling that a mere discrepancy in the date of birth across different educational records does not constitute fraud or misconduct if the certificates are genuine and the individual gained no undue advantage. The Court observed that for an omission to assume the character of misconduct, it must be shown to be “purposeful, calculated, and actuated by a discernible intent to deceive.”
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Vijai Kumar Yadav, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in August 2014 in District Mau. His appointment was predicated on academic qualifications including a Purva Madhyama examination (2001) from Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, an Uttar Madhyama qualification, and a Shastri degree (2009). He subsequently completed the Basic Training Certificate (BTC) course in 2010 and qualified for the U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) in 2013.
In 2018, a complaint was filed by one Rajesh Yadav under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking the petitioner’s educational records. Following an inquiry, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA), Mau, found that while the petitioner’s Purva Madhyama certificate recorded his date of birth as July 7, 1987, his earlier Class VIII and High School records from 1998 reflected a date of birth of July 2, 1984. On June 27, 2019, the BSA dismissed the petitioner from service and directed the lodging of a First Information Report (FIR) against him, alleging suppression of facts.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Siddharth Khare, argued that all foundational certificates relied upon for the appointment were genuine and had never been alleged to be forged or fabricated. He contended that the 1998 High School certificate was never produced or utilized to seek admission to the BTC course or for the appointment. Relying on Sheoraj Singh vs. State of U.P. and Kamla Kant Yadav vs. State of U.P., he argued that a mere variance in the date of birth does not vitiate an appointment unless it confers an undue advantage, such as making an ineligible candidate eligible.
Per contra, the respondent-BSA argued that the petitioner was fully aware of his earlier recorded date of birth (1984) but deliberately withheld this information, relying instead on the Purva Madhyama certificate (1987). The respondents characterized this as a “conscious suppression of material facts” and argued that in cases involving fraud, the requirement for a detailed inquiry is diluted.
The Court’s Analysis
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed that the respondents’ case rested solely on the divergence of dates of birth. The Court stated:
“A mere discrepancy, bereft of any attendant element of deceit, cannot, by any judicially accepted standard, be elevated to the pedestal of fraud or wilful misrepresentation.”
The Court further noted that “fraud is not to be presumed; it must be pleaded with specificity and established by cogent and unimpeachable evidence.” It found that the certificates used by the petitioner were issued by competent authorities and were not alleged to be spurious.
Addressing the issue of “undue advantage,” the Court highlighted that even if the 1984 date of birth were accepted, the petitioner would still have met the eligibility criteria for the post. The Court remarked:
“The alleged discrepancy, therefore, does not translate into any prejudice either to the employer or to competing candidates.”
The Court discussed several precedents:
- Sheoraj Singh vs. State of U.P.: The Court noted that variance in dates across genuine certificates does not ipso facto constitute misconduct.
- Kavita Kuril vs. State of U.P.: The Court found this of limited assistance as the petitioner sought primacy for the Madhyama certificates rather than the High School certificate, which usually carries greater evidentiary value.
- Ashok Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. (Division Bench): The Court emphasized the Division Bench’s holding that fraud must be predicated upon “clear evidence of deception coupled with resultant gain.” Without a “demonstrable nexus” between the misrepresentation and the appointment, the charge of fraud cannot be sustained.
The Court concluded that the BSA had failed to record any categorical finding that the petitioner acted with a “calculated intent to mislead.”
Decision of the Court
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the dismissal order dated June 27, 2019. The Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to resume his duties forthwith.
However, invoking the principle of “no work, no pay,” the Court ruled that the petitioner would not be entitled to salary for the intervening period during which he did not discharge any duties. The Court also clarified that if any documents are subsequently found to be false or fabricated, the respondents remain free to initiate appropriate legal proceedings.
Case Details
Case Title: Vijai Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and 3 others
Case No.: WRIT – A No. 10432 of 2019
Bench: JusticeManju Rani Chauhan
Date: April 13, 2026
