The Allahabad High Court, while hearing a matter concerning the cancellation of the appointment of an Assistant Teacher, held that a mere discrepancy in the date of birth across different educational certificates cannot be a ground to annul the appointment, unless any undue advantage has been derived from it.
The Court clarified that,
“……..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 aforesaid order was passed by a Single Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan while allowing the writ petition filed by Vijai Kumar Yadav.
The Court observed that a mere discrepancy cannot be treated as fraud. Fraud cannot be presumed and must be established on the basis of concrete evidence.
Read also: https://practicinglawyer.in/allahabad-hc-illegal-teacher-appointments-statutory-violation/
The Court emphasized that,
“Fraud, it is trite, is not to be presumed; it must be pleaded with specificity and established by cogent and unimpeachable evidence.”
According to the case, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in district Mau in the year 2014. In 2018, on the basis of a complaint, an inquiry regarding his educational records was initiated.
During the inquiry, discrepancies in the date of birth across various certificates were found, on the basis of which the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mau terminated his services on June 27, 2019, and also directed for lodging of an FIR.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that all his educational certificates are valid and genuine, and none of them have been alleged to be forged or fabricated.
It was further argued that the High School certificate reflecting a different date of birth was neither used at the time of appointment nor did it confer any benefit upon him. Therefore, termination solely on the basis of discrepancy is arbitrary and illegal.
However, the respondents, while opposing the petition, alleged that the petitioner did not reveal the date of birth recorded in his earlier records, and that such non-disclosure amounts to concealment of facts and constitutes misconduct.
After considering the facts, the Court held that,
“………mere variance in dates of birth across certificates, in the absence of forgery or demonstrable advantage, does not ipso facto constitute misconduct.”
The Court further observed that for non-disclosure to amount to misconduct, it must be shown that it was deliberate and intended to secure an undue advantage. Mere technical discrepancy or inconsistency cannot justify a harsh penalty, as it would be disproportionate.
Finally, the Court found that,
“Thus, the foundational requirement of gain or advantage an indispensable concomitant of fraud is wholly absent.”
On these grounds, the Court set aside the termination order and directed reinstatement of the petitioner, holding that,
“……..the omission on the part of the petitioner to disclose the earlier certificate, though not to be appreciated does not rise to the level of a culpable suppression so as to invalidate the appointment.”
However, the Court clarified that the petitioner would not be entitled to salary for the period during which he did not work.
Case: Vijai Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 others
Case No: Writ – A No. – 10432 of 2019
Date of Order: 13.04.2026
Status: Allowed
