2026:HHC:17405 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.387 of 2019 Decided on: 13.05.2026 _____________________________________________________________ Ramesh Chauhan ...Petitioner Versus State of HP and another ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) Learned Deputy Advocate General has produced communication dated 15.05.2023, issued by Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh along with notification(s) dated 20.02.1981, which are taken on record 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned order dated 13.11.2009, Annexure P-19 may be quashed and set aside; (ii) That the impugned orders dated 16.3.2010, Annexure P-22 and order dated 17.06.2010, Annexure P-24 rejecting the appeal and revision petition of petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside;” 3. The facts which emerge from the pleadings are 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:17405 that the petitioner, who was National Gold Medalist in Judo/Kungfu, had submitted an application on 24.08.1993 (Annexure P-1) before respondent No.2, to offer him appointment as Inspector, Sub-Inspector or any eligible post under the Games Quota (Sports Quota). On receipt of the application, a process was initiated to recruit him against reservation for outstanding sportsmen, as per police Rule 12.1 of the Punjab Police (Himachal Amendment) Rules, 1994. As per communication dated 15.09.1993 (Annexure P- 2) issued by respondent No.2, Inspector General of Police, Armed Police training, H.P. was asked to verify the character antecedents of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to remain present to check his physical standard and for medical examination. After meeting the physical standards and checking of certificates, the petitioner was offered the appointment on 01.01.1994 (Annexure P-4) as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (for short ‘ASI’) w.e.f. 29.10.1993 F.N. in the H.P. Police Department against 1% reservation quota for outstanding sportsman against the reserve vacancy of Indian Reserve Battalion in the pay scale of Rs. 1410-45-1500-50-2000-60-2060-70- 2480/- plus usual allowance attached to the post and the 3 2026:HHC:17405 petitioner joined as ASI. 4. Later on while making the entries concerning the educational qualification of the petitioner in his character roll, a suspicion had arisen about the validity of his documents/degree of graduation i.e. B.A., obtained from Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya Varanasi (U.P.), as there was no mention about the marks obtained in different examinations viz. BA-II and BA-III. A show cause notice dated 03.02.1997 (Annexure P-6), was issued to the petitioner since the BA degree obtained by the petitioner is from a University, which has been declared as fake by the UGC and the degree/certificate awarded by this University is not entertained/accepted by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, and the petitioner being not eligible had succeeded in getting the appointment fraudulently, by producing B.A. certificate of aforesaid fake university, was called upon to show that why he should not be discharged from service for not possessing the required educational qualification for the post. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice on 10.02.1997 (Annexure P-7) and submitted that he is a National Gold Medalist in Judo/Kungfu and has got diploma of Judo from Sports Authority of India. 4 2026:HHC:17405 At the time of submitting the application for appointment under sports quota, he had no knowledge regarding the fact that the university in question has been declared as fake and when he obtained the degree in 1989, at that time there was no such indication regarding alleged fakeness of the university. Moreover, many persons who had only cleared matriculation examination, have been offered appointment against the sports quota as ASIs. Since the petitioner has served for three years, it would cause grave injustice and hardship to him, in case he is thrown out of job on the alleged ground that he does not have valid graduation degree while many sportsmen have been offered appointment on the basis of only matriculation educational qualification as ASIs. However, the competent authority did not agree with the reply and proposed to initiate a regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner was issued the charge-sheet. The petitioner submitted reply to the said charge-sheet. However, after receipt of the enquiry report, again a show cause notice dated 25.05.1998 (Annexure P-13) was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be discharged from the service forthwith for his misconduct and for not meeting out 5 2026:HHC:17405 the educational eligibility. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 25.05.1998 had filed the Original Application before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and had obtained the ad-interim order. Later on the said Original Application was transferred to this Court, which was registered as CWP(T) No.8670 of 2008, titled, Ramesh Chauhan vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, and the same came to be disposed of on 15.10.2009, holding that the petition instituted by the petitioner is premature and the same is dismissed. The interim order dated 16.07.1998 passed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was ordered to be vacated with immediate effect and the respondents were directed to proceed with the matter further in accordance with law. 5. After disposal of the petition, a show cause notice was again issued on 28.10.2009 (Annexure P-17) asking the petitioner to appear in person for personal hearing and the petitioner had replied to the said show cause notice on 03.11.2009 (Annexure P-18) stating therein that at the time of applying for the post, he never laid claim for appointment in Police Department to a particular post 6 2026:HHC:17405 and he had stated that he be considered for the post of Inspector/ Sub-inspector or Assistant Sub-Inspector or against any other post in view of his eligibility against sports quota. The petitioner had submitted all the certificates, which were in his possession including the degree of BA. It was for the department to verify the status of the university before offering him the appointment. The enquiry report does not depict that the BA degree possessed by him is forged one. It has only been stated that the degree, which is in possession of the petitioner has been issued by the university, which is included in the list of fake university by UGC. Since the petitioner had not applied for appointment to a particular post, the burden of checking eligibility was on the authorities. The petitioner could have been considered for a lower post as per his eligibility. 6. After receipt of the reply, the petitioner was discharged from service vide office order dated 13.11.2009 (Annexure P-19). Though the points raised by the petitioner in the reply were noticed that the petitioner had not applied to be considered for appointment against a particular post and further the petitioner was offered the appointment against the sports quota in view of his outstanding 7 2026:HHC:17405 performance, but while passing the order, it has been observed that in the enquiry, it was established that the degree of BA submitted by the petitioner was found to have been issued by the university which was declared fake by the UGC and thus the petitioner did not fulfill the required qualification prescribed for the job as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 20.02.1981. Since the petitioner did not fulfill the required criteria of educational qualification for appointment as ASI, his appointment was void ab-initio. 7. The petitioner instituted a statutory appeal under Rule 16.29 of Punjab Police Rules as applicable to H.P. Police Personnel against order dated 13.11.2009 (Annexure P-19) on 04.12.2009 (Annexure P-21), on various grounds as already mentioned in the reply to the show cause notice. However, the plea raised by the petitioner was not accepted and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 15/16.03.2010 (Annexure P-22) had dismissed the appeal. The petitioner still aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Authority has preferred the Revision Petition, which also met the same fate and respondent No.2 rejected the same on 17.06.2010 (Annexure P-24). While rejecting the revision 8 2026:HHC:17405 petition, it was observed by respondent No.2 that prima facie it reveals that the degree of BA submitted by the petitioner is not from the university which was established by law. The departmental enquiry was ordered on 25.03.1997 and the enquiry report was submitted in the month of April, 1997 and thus there is no delay in the enquiry. It was observed that no doubt the petitioner was appointed as ASI in the Police Department against the sports quota, however, the incumbents who were appointed against the said quota are required to fulfill the conditions of eligibility, especially the criteria of the educational qualification. It has been noticed that the educational qualification of BA was provided in the year 1989 (wrongly mentioned as 1981) by the competent authority and no person who did not fulfill the minimum educational qualification criteria was appointed as ASI except one Sh. Skaljung Dorje to whom relaxation was provided by the Government. The degree obtained by the petitioner from Varanasaya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalya was not established by law and thus, the same was not admissible. Since the petitioner was not fulfilling the essential qualification for appointment as ASI, he has rightly been discharged from 9 2026:HHC:17405 service and the punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. 8. The petitioner felling aggrieved by the order of discharge which order has been confirmed in appeal and revision has approached this Court, inter-alia on the grounds that he did not apply for the post of ASI, but applied for the post of Inspector/ Sub-Inspector, or any eligible post under the games quota (Sports quota) and the department had to verify the eligibility of the petitioner, before appointment was made in his favour. When show cause notice dated 03.02.1997 was issued to the petitioner, it was mentioned that the fake degree was submitted by him for procuring the job and he fraudulently obtained the job by misleading the authorities, whereas the petitioner had not mislead the authorities for the purpose of procuring the job and if the department could not verify the status of recognition of the degree of petitioner because of non-availability of list of recognized institutions, it cannot be held that misconduct of the petitioner has been proved. The petitioner was not recruited under normal direct recruitment, but was recruited on the basis of outstanding sports record. Further, the department has appointed even those candidates, who 10 2026:HHC:17405 were only matriculate as ASIs against sports quota and name of one person was mentioned i.e. Sh. S. Dorje, who was appointed as ASI on 28.06.1994. 9. The respondents have filed reply to the petition and supported the decision. It has been averred that in the disciplined organization like police force, a person with a degree from fake university cannot be allowed to serve. The petitioner in fact has committed an offence by obtaining a fake certificate and thus, the department had taken a lenient view of removing him from service on the ground that he was not having a minimum eligibility qualification. It has been further averred that the matter was got enquired into by the Commandant IRBn from H.P. University and it was informed that Varanasaya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalya was declared as fake university by the UGC vide d.o. No. F-7- 5/93 (CPP-I) dated 14.09.1993. So far as the plea raised by the petitioner qua one person namely S. Dorje was appointed as ASI on 28.06.1994, who was only matriculate is concerned, it has been averred that the relaxation in his case was given by respondent No.1 prior to his appointment. However, the petitioner did not fulfill the required educational qualification and thus, his appointment 11 2026:HHC:17405 was void ab-initio and thus he has rightly been discharged form the police force. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 11. It is not in dispute by the respondents that the process for offering appointment to the petitioner was initiated on the basis of the application dated 24.08.1993 (Annexure P-1), wherein the petitioner had submitted the application for the post of Inspector, Sub-Inspector or any eligible post under the games quota (Sports Quota). The respondents on receipt of the said application had initiated the process and checked the physical standards to be met by petitioner as well as his educational qualification, character and antecedents before offering him the appointment. As per the appointment letter dated 01.01.1994 (Annexure P-4), he was offered appointment as temporary Asstt. Sub-Inspector of Police w.e.f. 29.10.1993, F.N. in the H.P. Police Deptt. against 1% reservation quota for outstanding sportsman. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was a National Gold Medalist in Judo/Kungfu. It is also not in dispute that one another person namely Sh. S. Dorje was offered the appointment to the same post, who 12 2026:HHC:17405 was possessing the qualification of matriculation, after the petitioner on 28.06.1994, but only difference is that he was offered the appointment before relaxing the educational qualification. As per notification dated 20.02.1981, an amendment in Rule 12.6(2)(d) was made to the effect that a candidate for the post of Inspector or Assistant Sub- Inspector should have passed B.A. or equivalent examination, from any recognized university or institution; provided that the Inspector General may in special cases, after recording reasons in writing, dispense with this educational qualification. The relevant notification reads as under :- “HOME DEPARTMENT SECTION 'A' NOTIFICATION Simla-171002, the 20th February, 1981 No. 739/73-Home (A). II.-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 7 of the Police Act (V of 1861), and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to make the following rules further to amend the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to Himachal Pradesh Police, namely:- Short title and commencement.-(1) These rules may be called the Himachal Pradesh Police (Amendment) Rules, 1981. (2) These rules shall come into force at once. 2. Amendment: Rule 12.6(2)(d): Educational qualification for direct recruitment of Inspector/A.S.I.-For the existing rule 12.6(2)(d), the following shall be substituted, namely:- "12.6 (2)(d): A candidate for the post of an 13 2026:HHC:17405 Inspector or Assistant Sub-Inspector should have passed B.A. or equivalent examination, from any recongnised University or Institution; provided that the Inspector-General may in special cases, after recording reasons in writing, dispense with this educational qualification." K. C. RANDEYA. Chief Secretary” 12. In case of S. Dorje, relaxation in educational qualification was given on the basis of the amendment in the notification, who was appointed after the petitioner on 28.06.1994. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has forged the said document of BA degree. The only plea taken by the respondents in their reply, and while passing the order of discharge which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority, was that the degree obtained by the petitioner is from a fake institute. No doubt the degree obtained by the petitioner was not valid, but when the petitioner had acquired the said qualification and further applied for the post on 24.08.1993, the said university was not declared as fake university and it came to be declared fake university only on 14.09.1993, which fact was not even in the notice of the respondents for the reason that they had offered the appointment to the petitioner after checking the testimonials and further the petitioner having met other 14 2026:HHC:17405 criteria to offer him appointment under 1% sports quota. Once there is power under the rules to relax the qualification and the said power has been exercised in case of S. Dorje, who was appointed after the petitioner, even in the case of the petitioner, the said power of relaxation ought to have been exercised, as he was national gold medalist in Judo/Kungfu. 13. It is, by now, settled by catena of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that this Court cannot sit over the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority and cannot convert this Court as a Court of appeal, but the only issue which requires consideration by this Court is whether the petitioner who was offered the appointment on the basis of his having National Gold Medalist in Judo/Kungfu under 1% quota without making any misrepresentation, could have been discharged from service when the respondents in the similar fact, that too after offering the appointment to the petitioner had relaxed the condition of graduation. Once the respondents have not disputed the fact that another person to whom the appointment on the same post was offered, was not possessing the qualification of B.A. coupled with the 15 2026:HHC:17405 fact that the petitioner had not applied for offering him the appointment to a specific post, the petitioner can be denied the benefit of his National Gold Medalist certificate, the answer would be no. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Varinder Hans vs. Union of India & Others, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 1343, and contended that in the said case though the candidate was not possessing the mandatory trade certificate as required by the recruitment rules, but the Court had come to the conclusion that since there were no allegations of misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and further the documents submitted were duly scrutinized and the expert who had evaluated the skill of the candidates did not find the petitioner lacking in any manner, the order of termination cannot be sustained. The relevant paras of the judgment reads as under:- “14. From the above, it is clear that there is no allegation of any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. The documents submitted by him were duly scrutinized. He was found eligible. He appeared for the interview. His skill at caning was put to test. He secured the maximum marks. The expert who evaluated the skill of the candidates did not find the petitioner lacking in any manner. He was recommended for appointment and joined on 5.2.2014. He was terminated on 1.10.2015 after he had worked for about one year and eight months. There is no observation that he was lacking in skill or that his work at the PGI was not upto the standards. 16 2026:HHC:17405 15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. M.S. Mudhol v. Shri S.D. Halegkar, (1993) 3 SCC 591 held that where there was no misrepresentation by a candidate, and despite his not possessing the qualifications he had been appointed and had worked for considerable time it would be iniquitous to disturb him. It was observed as under: "6. Since we find that it was the default on the part of the 2nd respondent, Director of Education in illegally approving the appointment of the first respondent in 1981 although he did not have the requisite academic qualifications as a result of which the Ist respondent has continued to hold the said post for the last 12 years now, it would be inadvisable to disturb him from the said post at this late stage particularly when he was not at fault when his selection was made. There is nothing on record to show that he had at that time projected his qualifications other than what he possessed. If, therefore, in spite of placing all his cards before the selection committee, the selection committee for some reason or the other had thought it fit to choose him for the post and the 2nd respondent had chosen to acquiesce in the appointment, it would be inequitous to make him suffer for the same now. Illegality, if any, was committed by the selection committee and the 2nd respondent. They are alone to be blamed for the same." 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, (1990) 1 SCC 361 held that even where the candidates did not possess the essential qualifications but they have worked and gained sufficient experience it would be harsh to deny them confirmation on the ground that they lacked essential qualifications . Hon'ble Court observed as under: "6. The main controversy centers round the question whether some petitioners are possessed of the requisite qualifications to hold the posts so as to entitle them to be confirmed in the respective posts held by them. The indisputable facts are that the petitioners were appointed between the period 1983 and 1986 and ever since, they have been working and have gained sufficient experience in the actual discharge of duties attached to the posts held by them. Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be 17 2026:HHC:17405 reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications. In our view, three years' experience, ignoring artificial break in service for short period/periods created by the respondent, in the circumstances, would be sufficient for confirmation. If there is a gap of more than three months between the period of termination and re-appointment that period may be excluded in the computation of the three years period. Since the petitioners before us satisfy the requirement of three years' service as calculated above, we direct that 40 of the senior-most workmen should be regularised with immediate effect and the remaining 118 petitioners should be regularised in a phased manner, before April 1, 1991 and promoted to the next higher post according to the standing orders. All the petitioners are entitled to equal pay at par with the persons appointed on regular basis to the similar post or discharge similar duties, and are entitled to the scale of pay and all allowances revised from time to time for the said posts. We further direct that 16 of the petitioners who are ousted from the service pending the writ petition should be reinstated immediately. Suitable promotional avenues should be created and the respondent should consider the eligible candidates for being promoted to such posts. The respondent is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000 in the Registry of this Court within four weeks to meet the remuneration of the Industrial Tribunal. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed, but without costs." 17. A Division Bench of this Court In Sarabjeet Kaur Dhaliwal v. Punjab Agricultural University, 2003 (4) S.C.T 132 reiterated the same as under: 14. The Courts have held that where there is no misrepresentation on the part of the candidate for seeking appointment to a post but the candidate is appointed despite his not having the requisite qualifications, his services are not liable to be dispensed with. This Court in the case of Saudamini Prabha v. State of Punjab, 1999 (3) Recent Services Judgments 499, held in para-5 as follows: "After considering the matter, I am of the view that this case can be disposed of on the 18 2026:HHC:17405 short ground that though the petitioner may not have had the requisite qualification at the time of her initial appointment in the year 1976 but by efflux of time and the experience gained she should be deemed to have acquired the necessary expertise in the subject. This has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, ( 1990) 1 SCC 361: AIR 1990 SC 371." 15. Besides, the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. M.S. Mudhol v. S.D. Halegkar, 1993 (4) S.C.T. 226: JT 1993 (4) SC 143 considered the case of a Principal of a private aided school who was appointed due to the default of the Selection Committee in 1981, although he did not have the requisite qualification, but there was nothing on record to show that he projected qualification other than he possessed. The Supreme Court held that it would be iniquitous to make his suffer for the same now after a period of 12 years. The following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India are apposite: "Since we find that it was the default on the part of the 2nd respondent, Director of Education in illegally approving the appointment of the first respondent in 1981 although he did not have the requisite academic qualifications as a result of which the 1st respondent has continued to hold the said post for the last 12 years now, it would be inadvisable to disturb him from the said post at this late stage particularly when he was not at fault when his selection was made. There is nothing on record to show that he had at that time projected his qualifications other than what he possessed. If, therefore, in spite of placing all his cards before the Selection Committee, the Selection Committee for some reason or the other had thought it fit to choose him for the post and the 2nd respondent had chosen to acquiesce in the appointment, it would be iniquitous to make him suffer for the same now. Illegality, if any, was committed by the Selection Committee and the 2nd respondent. They are alone to be blamed for the same". 18. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside. The order dated 01.10.2015 terminating the 19 2026:HHC:17405 services of the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.” 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the aforementioned case was assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, the SLP was dismissed, which fact has been noticed in the subsequent judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.28774-2017, titled, Anupam vs. Union of India and others, wherein too, the termination of the petitioner’s service on the same very ground of ineligibility relying upon the judgment in Varinder Hans’s case (supra) was quashed. The relevant para of the judgment reads as under :- “While so, Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, learned counsel for the petitioner, would point out that one Varinder Hans, who was also dismissed from service as a Caneman by PGIMER on identical grounds was granted relief by this Court in CWP-30737-2018, titled 'Varinder Hans vs. Union of India and others', which was allowed on 31.07.2019. He would state that the review petition filed against the said order was dismissed and the PGIMER was unsuccessful in its challenge to these orders before the Supreme Court. He would further state that Varinder Hans was thereafter reinstated in service by the PGIMER. Mr. Amit Jhanji, learned counsel for the PGIMER, fairly concedes that the case of the petitioner is identically placed with that of Varinder Hans. In that view of the matter, the termination of the petitioner's service on the very same ground of ineligibility, as was applied to Varinder Hans, cannot be 20 2026:HHC:17405 sustained. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the order dated 24.08.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, in OA No. 060/00095/2016 as well as the order of termination from service dated 01.10.2015 passed by the PGIMER against the petitioner. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. M.S. Mudhol and another vs. S.D. Halegkar and others, (1993) 3 SCC 591, wherein it was also observed that in case there is no fault on the part of the authorities, the appointment made was not interfered with. 17. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.2521 of 1997, titled, Gursharanjit Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others, to contend that the petitioners in that case, were in possession of the degrees awarded by a fake and bogus institution, had no legal right to seek issuance of a mandamus directing the respondents to consider them for appointment in government service. However, in the present case, the petitioner was offered the appointment by the respondents after checking the testimonials and once 21 2026:HHC:17405 he has served the respondents w.e.f. 29.10.1993, till the date of passing the order on 13.11.2009, the principles laid down in the said judgment cannot be made applicable. In that case, the persons were not offered the appointments. Further, once the respondents in the case of one S.Dorje had offered him appointment after the petitioner while relaxing the educational qualification of B.A. under the Rules, the petitioner who was having the National Gold Medal in Judo/Kungfu, ought to have also been given the said relaxation. Since the petitioner has not been given the same treatment, it offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Not only this, the petitioner had not concealed any material from the authority at the time of seeking appointment and the authority offered him appointment on 01.01.1994 as ASI w.e.f. 29.10.1993 only for the reason that he was outstanding sportsman and gold medalist. 18. Learned Deputy Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. _____ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.24705 of 2023, titled, Commissioner of Police & Ors. vs. Ex. Ct. Vinod Kumar, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme 22 2026:HHC:17405 Court has held that once the person gets appointment on forged degree/ certificate, he has no right to remain in the service. However, in the present case, the petitioner had not forged any degree or certificate and only thing which had weighed with the authorities while discharging him from service was that the degree obtained by him was from an institute which was declared as fake institute. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had obtained the degree of BA from the said institute in the year 1989, whereas the said university was declared to be fake university as per the notification issued by the UGC on 14.09.1993. 19. As already mentioned above, once the respondents had relaxed the minimum eligibility qualification to hold the post of ASI in case of S. Dorje, who was appointed after the petitioner and the rules provide to relax the said condition, the action on the part of the respondents to discharge the petitioner cannot sustain in the eyes of law. The Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority have weighed only with the fact that the degree obtained by the petitioner was from a fake institute, unnoticed of the fact that under the rules, the power was vested with the authority to relax the condition. 23 2026:HHC:17405 Furthermore, when the petitioner had applied for appointment to any eligible post and not sought to be appointed against a particular post which requires the qualification of BA. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had misrepresented or produced the degree which was fake. It was for the respondents to verify the facts before offering the appointment to the petitioner. As already noticed above, the petitioner was offered the appointment on 01.01.1994 w.e.f. 29.10.1993 and this was done, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was having National Gold Medalalist in Judo/Kungfu and further his appointment was made against 1% reservation quota for outstanding sportsman. 20. The petitioner had instituted the present petition in the year 2010, when he was 44 years old and he would have retired from service by now. Therefore, the petitioner can only be granted the limited relief after reinstatement to count the entire service from the date of offering him appointment till his superannuation. Since the petitioner has not worked for all these years, he is not held entitled to salary of the period. However, keeping in view the fact that the respondents had the power to relax educational 24 2026:HHC:17405 qualification coupled with the fact that they had relaxed the educational qualification in respect of one S. Dorje who was offered appointment as ASI after the petitioner, the order of discharge passed against the petitioner was very harsh and cannot sustain in the eyes of law along with order(s) dated 15/16.03.2010 (Annexure P-22) and 17.06.2010 (Annexure P-24) passed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority. Thus, the petitioner is held entitled to count the period from the date of discharge till his date of superannuation for the purpose of grant of pension to him only. 21. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 13.11.2009 (Annexure P-19), 15/16.03.2010 (Annexure P-22) and 17.06.2010 (Annexure P-24) are quashed and set aside, with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and count his entire service w.e.f. 29.10.1993 till the date of his superannuation, only for the purpose of grant of pension to him. The petitioner is not held entitled for any other monetary benefits before superannuation. However, it is clarified that the petitioner shall be entitled to pension from the date of his retirement and the arrears be paid to him 25 2026:HHC:17405 within three months from today. In case the arrears of pension are not paid to the petitioner within the aforesaid period, he shall be paid interest on the arrears @ 6% per annum from today, till its payment. However, there shall be no orders as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 13 th May , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge