HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10373 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Krishna Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 and 2, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.3, and Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for respondents no.4 and 5. 2. The facts of the case have already been noted in detail in the order dated 11.09.2025. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 11.09.2025 is reproduced below:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 & 2, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents no. 4 & 5. 2. The petitioner claims that he had been appointed in the year 2015 i.e on 21.09.2015 as an Assistant Teacher (Basic) and was continuing in the same capacity. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2025, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition whereby the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled w.e.f the date of the appointment itself i.e 21.09.2015. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Krishna Mohan Srivastava, Sumit Awasthi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ran Vijay Singh, Shivam Sharma Deena Nath Verma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Perusal of the order impugned indicates that the respondents have indicated that at the time when the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Basic) he had annexed his mark sheet of Uttar Pradesh Teacher Eligible Test having qualified in the year 2011 bearing Roll No. 08063009 and certificate no. 4177066 issued on 25.11.2011 which upon verification has been found to be forged and thus the respondents have concluded that as the petitioner has obtained appointment on the basis of fake and forged documents as such, his appointment itself is being cancelled. 5. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier the respondents have verified the said Teacher Eligibility Test Certificate which has been found to be correct and consequently, there cannot be any occasion to cancel the appointment of the petitioner by indicating for the second time that upon verification, the said certificate has been found to be fake and fabricated. 6. On the other hand, Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents no. 4 & 5 has supported the order impugned by indicating that once it has clearly emerged that the Teacher Eligibility Test Certificate as annexed by the petitioner at the time of his appointment was fake and fabricated rather as per the aforesaid certificate number and roll number, the said certificate is of one Sri Vikash Singh as per details in paragraph 5 of the order impugned as such, there is no infirmity and illegality in the respondents having proceeded to cancel the appointment of the petitioner retrospectively. 7. 7. Considering the aforesaid and in order to give a quietus to the matter it has been suggested by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the contesting parties that the Court may itself summon the original records pertaining to the Teacher Eligibility Test Certificate from the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Parishad, Prayagraj i.e the respondent no. 3. 8. Considering the aforesaid, let the respondent no. 3 depute a responsible officer to produce the records before this Court pertaining to Roll No. 08063009 and certificate no. 4177066 issued on 25.11.2011 of WRIA No. 10373 of 2025 2 Teacher Eligibility Test. 9. List this case on 25.09.2025 as fresh." 3. In pursuance to the aforesaid order dated 11.09.2025 the original records have been produced by Sri Ran Vijay Singh pertaining to the certificate of Teachers Eligibility Test as per details indicated in the order dated 11.09.2025. The original records have also been perused by this Court. 4. As per Certificate No.4177066, and the original record, the same is found to have been issued with respect to Sri Bharat Kumar Singh son of Sri Abhimanyu Singh. 5. With regard to Roll No.08063009 the same pertains to one Sri Vikas Singh son of Sri Indra Bahadur Singh who was also declared failed. 6. Upon the same being pointed out, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not intend to press on with the petition and prays that the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 8. Records have been perused and returned back to Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.3. September 25, 2025 A. Katiyar WRIA No. 10373 of 2025 3 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench