Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108844 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 353 of 2004 Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Respondent :- Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Agarwal,R.K. Gautam,Rajesh Kumar Dubey,Samarath Singh,Srivats Narain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,H.R. Mishra,Rajiv Kumar Singh,Satyam Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri V.K.Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. None present on behalf of respondents. 2. Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Branch Manager on 2.5.2003 and he took charge also. However, on basis of a complaint and after due verification it was found that petitioner has mentioned his incorrect date of birth in order to avoid his minimum age bar and his appointment was cancelled void- abinitio vide order dated 11.12.2003 which was served upon him on 13.12.2003. 3. It is not under much dispute that in the appointment letter, it was specifically mentioned that in case subsequently any document is found forged or any incorrect information is furnished, his services can be cancelled without issuing any notice. 4. Aforesaid order was challenged before this Court by way of present writ petition. 5. Initially, this writ petition was cognizable before Division Bench and the impugned order was stayed vide order dated 8.1.2004. However, writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 10.1.2008 and was restored by Division Bench on 8.12.2017. 6. Later on, an issue cropped up about status of interim order, therefore, an interim order was passed by Division Bench on 13.7.2018. For reference, same is reproduced below: " The instant application is preferred to clarify the order dated 08.12.2017 restoring Writ-A No. 353 of 2004 at its original number. The petition for writ aforesaid came to be dismissed in default on 10.01.2008. An application then was filed for restoration of the same alongwith an application to have condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. This Court by condoning the delay in filing the restoration application also allowed the restoration application and restored the writ petition at its original number. Suffice to mention that at the first instance while issuing notices to the parties to the writ proceedings, a Division Bench of this Court granted interim relief to the petitioner in the terms that "the impugned order dated 13.12.2003 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed." It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that after dismissal of the writ petition in default, the respondents- employer did not permit the applicant-petitioner to join the duties. However, on restoration of the writ petition, the interim order also stand restored and, therefore, the denial from joining the service amount to defiance of the direction given by this Court. It is pointed out that a contempt petition filed by the petitioner has not been entertained by the Court dealing with the contempt matters on the count that the order restoring the petition for writ does not make it clear that whether the interim relief granted too was restored or not. We are of considered opinion that in normal course on restoration of a writ petition, interim relief stands automatically revived unless the circumstances occurred during the period interregnum or the orders passed by the Court speak contrary. In the case in hand, the interim order remained in currency till dismissal of the writ petition in default on 10.01.2008. The restoration application came to be accepted on 08.12.2017. During the period interregnum, the employer did not allow the petitioner to join the duties. The period aforesaid is too large and that virtually indicates that the petitioner himself was not interested for joining the duties otherwise he would have approached the Counsel immediately for restoration of the writ petition alongwith the interim relief. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that in the case in hand, it is to be treated as the interlocutory order granted by this Court has not been revived. Being a petition for writ of 2004, expeditious disposal of that is oblivious. It is expected that the hearing of the matter shall be made as soon as possible." 7. Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order before Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.23368 of 2018, which was dismissed vide order dated 7.9.2018 with an observation that writ petition be decided expeditiously. Thereafter, this matter became cognizable before Single Bench, therefore, it is being heard by this Bench. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice was issued to the petitioner before impugned order was passed. Petitioner has not committed any forgery and he has submitted his due certificates and according to his certificates, his Date of Birth was correctly mentioned as "08.06.1981" as well as it was duly verified also. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the counter affidavit a new allegation was levelled against the petitioner that mark-sheet of 3rd year Graduation was also a forged document. 10. None appears on behalf of respondents, therefore, I have carefully perused the pleadings exchanged in this writ petition. 11. In the counter affidavit, a document has been annexed which is issued by the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Bareilly that petitioner's real Date of Birth is "08.06.1982" and not "08.06.1981" and there is no reason for this Court not to believe the said document which is based on records available with the Board. 12. So far as other allegation is concerned, it is also based on documents made available with concerned University. 13. It is well settled that any appointment obtained on basis of forged documents can be cancelled even without issuing notice to the petitioner. 14. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any document that reports submitted by Board and University were incorrect or not based on records, therefore, Court is of opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 15. Court also takes note that petitioner has not taken any benefit of above referred interim order issued earlier. 16. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad