Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed by an Assistant Teacher whose appointment had been cancelled after 15 years of service due to allegations of forged documents, the Single Judge Bench of Manju Rani Chauhan, J., rejected the petition, holding that no interference was required and the relief as prayed for could not be granted. Noting that there was a disturbing pattern of teachers being appointed through fake or forged documents, the Court issued a mandamus directing the Principal Secretary, Basic Education, to undertake a comprehensive and time-bound scrutiny of the appointments of Assistant Teachers across the State.
Background
On 27-07-2010, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher, and she joined Uchchatar Prathmik Vidyayala, Bardiha Dalpat, Vikas Khand, Salempur. After her joining, all her educational documents and other relevant documents were scrutinized by the respondents, and she continued to work as an Assistant Teacher without any complaints for 15 years. In 2025, her documents were verified again due to some complaint, and without following the due procedure as required under law, the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria, passed the impugned order cancelling her appointment.
Aggrieved, she filed the present petition challenging the impugned order.
The respondents contended that it was found that all the documents placed at the time of obtaining the appointment were forged. Though a proper notice was given to the petitioner, she did not submit any reply or place any documents to show that the educational certificates, domicile certificate, and other relevant documents provided at the time of appointment were genuine. In the petition, no certificates were placed on record to prove that the appointment was sought by providing genuine documents.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court stated that when the order was being dictated, the petitioner submitted that there was an alternative remedy of filing an appeal; therefore, she prayed not to pursue this petition. However, the Court noted that the prayer could be entertained on this ground as the existence of an alternative remedy was not a bar in cases where the ground of denial of opportunity of hearing had been taken in the petition.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the petition, holding that no interference was required and the relief as prayed for could not be granted.
Thereafter, the Court remarked that while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had repeatedly noticed a disturbing pattern wherein a large number of Assistant Teachers had secured appointments based on forged and fabricated certificates, fake documents, or by deliberate concealment of material facts. Such persons continued 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 Basic Shiksha Adhikari concerned.
The Court further remarked that it was a matter of serious concern that, despite the issuance of several circulars and instructions by the State Government, the authorities entrusted with the duty of maintaining purity in the education system had failed to take effective and timely action against such illegal appointments.
“The inaction on the part of the authorities not only perpetuates fraud, but also strikes at the very root of the education system, causing grave prejudice to the interest of students, which is of paramount and overriding consideration for this Court.”
In such circumstances, and to uphold the rule of law, protect the larger public interest, and ensure that the education imparted to children is not compromised, the Court issued a mandamus directing the Principal Secretary, Basic Education, to undertake a comprehensive and time-bound scrutiny of the appointments of Assistant Teachers across the State.
The Court further directed the Principal Secretary to ensure that appropriate action, strictly in accordance with law, was taken against all such teachers, including cancellation of appointments and recovery of salary, wherever permissible. Simultaneously, stringent disciplinary and penal action shall also be initiated against those officials who were found to have colluded with, abetted, or deliberately ignored such fraudulent appointments. The entire exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
[Garima Singh v. State of U.P., WRIT – A No. 19634 of 2025, decided on 22-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Ram Badan, Tej Prakash Mishra
For the respondent: Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi), C.S.C.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
