Appointment Of Candidate Who Deliberately Enters Higher Marks In Form To Gain Undue Advantage Is Fundamentally Illegal: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that appointment of a candidate who deliberately enters higher marks in application form for recruitment, to gain undue advantage in selection process is fundamentally illegal.
It held that such candidate cannot seek the benefit of estoppel as the appointment is tainted from the beginning.
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held, “where a candidate deliberately enters marks higher than those actually secured, thereby placing himself/ herself in a position of unwarranted advantage and ultimately securing appointment, such appointment cannot be termed legal or valid. Such an act, by any stretch of reasoning, cannot be treated as a mere human error or an inadvertent mistake, as it confers an undue advantage upon the candidate to the prejudice of other eligible aspirants and strikes at the very root of fairness and transparency in the selection process.”
Petitioners had applied for the posts of Assistant Teachers and were declared qualified in the results for Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination 2019. Subsequently, petitioners applied for appointment and were duly selected and allotted District Kushinagar. Due to certain objections being raised, petitioners were asked to submit affidavits and after consideration, their appointment orders were issued by Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA).
Petitioners started working in 2021, however, in 2025, they were terminated from services on grounds that they had filled higher marks than what they had actually received in their applications. Petitioners challenged the termination orders on grounds that they fulfilled the eligibility criteria on date of application and that they had served efficiently for about 5 years.
It was argued that the petitioners had submitted the correct information by way of the affidavit and there was no complain against their working for 5 years, therefore, the punishment of termination was too harsh.
Perusing the records, the Court observed that certain petitioners had not inflated their marks but had mentioned them separately or in a different format than required, which was considered a bona fide mistake. However, there were certain petitioners who had entered higher marks.
Relying on various decisions of the Apex Court, the Court held that entering higher marks cannot be treated as mere human error but a deliberate act which can alter merit positions in recruitments. It held that such undue advantage will vitiate the selection/ appointment as “fraud vitiates every solemn act.”
The Court observed
“The candidates' act of furnishing inflated academic marks constitutes a material misrepresentation. Their subsequent appointment is, therefore, vitiated ab initio. The opportunity given for rectification cannot absolve the candidates of intentional falsification. No estoppel can arise to protect an appointment that is fundamentally illegal. The very foundation of the appointment stands vitiated by misrepresentation.”
Regarding the argument of the petitioners that the appointment could not be cancelled at a later stage when no discrepancy was detected earlier, the Court held that
“Permitting estoppel in such circumstances would undermine the sanctity of meritocracy, distort the selection process, and result in the displacement of genuinely more meritorious candidates. The doctrine of estoppel cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality or to defeat the legitimate expectations of eligible aspirants.”
Noting that only 4 out of 11 petitioners had not deliberately entered higher marks, the Court granted them relief and quashed their termination orders. However, it held that the other petitioners who had deliberately inflated their marks were not entitled to any relief from the Court. Accordingly, writ petitions with respect to them were dismissed.
Case Title: Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhary And 6 Others State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 8734 of 2025]