Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65372-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1069 of 2024 Appellant :- Raja Ram Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Bhawesh Pratap Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shashi Prakash Singh Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 11.11.2022, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.16013 of 2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner, challenging the order of termination, has been dismissed. A review petition has also been dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2024. 2. Undisputed facts, as emerge on record, are that the appellant/petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in primary institution run by the U.P. Basic Education Board on 24.12.2010. Pursuant to this appointment, he joined his services and was working continuously till 2021, without any complaint. The appellant was also receiving salary from the State. It is at this stage that some complaint was made suggesting that the appointment of appellant has been obtained on the strength of manipulated intermediate mark-sheet. A notice was issued to the petitioner after certain inputs received from the Special Task Force (STF) by the District Basic Education Officer. Though the first notice was not replied but in the second notice the appellant/petitioner did informed the authorities that he had not made any interpolation in any of the educational testimonials. It is thereafter that the order impugned in the writ petition, dated 07.07.2022, has been passed referring to the allegation made against the appellant/petitioner as also some report obtained from the Block Education Officer. This report of Block Education Officer apparently relies upon the input received from the STF on 20.10.2021. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition as also the review after holding that the fraudulent appointment obtained by the appellant/petitioner does not entitle him to any relief of continuance. Various judgments have also been relied upon in the judgment which lays down that fraud vitiates every solemn act. 3. Shri G. K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/petitioner has invited attention of the Court to the e-service book maintained by the department of appellant/petitioner. At page 107 of the paper book the e-service book clearly records the educational details of the appellant/petitioner. As per the particulars contained in the e-service book, the appellant/petitioner passed high school in 1997 with 60% marks, whereas he passed intermediate in 2000 with 57% marks. We may note that the only manipulation, as is alleged by respondents, is in the intermediate mark-sheet. According to the respondents, the appellant/petitioner secured employment by showing his intermediate marks as 352 out of 500, whereas it was only 285 out of 500. 4. The high school and intermediate mark-sheets of the appellant/petitioner are annexed alongwith the appeal, as per which, he secured 360 marks out of 600 in the high school which works out to 60%. Similarly, appellant/petitioner obtained 285 marks out of 500 in the intermediate which works out to 57%. In the e-service book also same figures are shown in the form of percentage. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that on the strength of marks so recorded in the e-service book he got selected with 249.45 marks, whereas the last candidate secured 246.94 marks. The submission on behalf of appellant/petitioner is that the District Basic Education Officer has not applied his mind to the controversy in issue and no finding is contained in the order of the authority recording that the employment was obtained by the appellant/petitioner on the strength of manipulated intermediate mark-sheet. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/petitioner has taken us through the order of District Basic Education Officer, which does not deal with the controversy at all. The officer merely notices the communication received from STF and also the report of Block Education Officer and thereafter conclusion is drawn that the appointment of appellant/petitioner is void. 7. Though learned Single Judge has accepted the claim of respondents and dismissed the writ petition but it appears to us that the facts were not correctly placed before learned Single Judge. It is undisputed that the appellant/petitioner was appointed in the year 2010 in open selection and he was allowed to join and has continuously worked for 11 years. He has also received salary from the State. The proceedings against the appellant/petitioner are initiated on the strength of some inputs received from STF, suggesting that the educational testimonials of appellant/petitioner are manipulated. The allegation is that intermediate mark-sheet relied upon by appellant shows his marks to be 352 whereas he actually secured 285 marks. In the order of District Basic Education Officer, however, there is no consideration of facts of the case, nor there is any finding that the appointment has been obtained by the appellant/petitioner on the strength of manipulated intermediate mark-sheet. 8. It is also worth noticing that in reply to the second show cause notice the appellant/petitioner specifically informed the District Basic Education Officer on 16.12.2021 that his selection is on the basis of his intermediate mark-sheet where he secured 285 marks. This aspect of the matter has also not been touched. Unless a finding is recorded based upon the materials on record that the appointment of appellant/petitioner was obtained on the strength of manipulated intermediate mark- sheet, showing higher marks from what he had actually secured, the appointment itself cannot be questioned. Since we find that the District Basic Education Officer has neither noticed the relevant materials nor has returned a finding necessary for passing the order of termination, as such the order terminating the services of appellant/petitioner cannot be sustained. In view of the aforesaid, the view taken by learned Single Judge also cannot be justified. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of learned Single Judge, dated 11.11.2022, rendered in Writ-A No.16013 of 2022, as also the order dated 04.07.2024 passed in review, are set aside. The order dated 07.07.2022, passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh, terminating the services of appellant/petitioner, is also set aside. The appellant/petitioner would be reinstated in service and would also be entitled to his current salary. It shall, however, be open for the respondents to re- determine the issue after notice to the appellant/petitioner and by following due and fair procedure, if the respondents so require, within a period of four months from today. The question of arrears of salary shall abide by the fresh decision to be taken in the matter by the respondents, as per the liberty given above. In the event such liberty is not availed, the appellant/petitioner shall be entitled to arrears of salary after four months. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Ashok Kr. Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad