It held that such non-disclosure can justify cancellation only if a clear and direct link is shown between the omission and the securing of the appointment.

Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held,

“An appointment secured on the strength of genuine qualifications cannot be annulled merely because the appointee had failed to disclose an antecedent event which had no bearing upon his eligibility or selection for the post.”

Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Mathematics) in Sant Kabir Nagar in 2015 and his services were later confirmed. On a complaint in 2018 that he had obtained the job on forged certificates, an inquiry found his High School, Intermediate and B.Sc. certificates genuine, while the report on his 2011-12 B.Ed. marksheet was awaited. The District Basic Education Officer nonetheless terminated his services by order dated 20.04.2019.

The petitioner had earlier been appointed as a teacher in 2004. That appointment was cancelled in 2010 after his B.Ed. certificate was found to be forged. He later obtained his B.Ed. and TET qualifications afresh.

Petitioner argued that Rule 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 disqualifies only those removed or dismissed from service, whereas his earlier appointment was merely cancelled. It was pleaded that he was himself a victim of fraud by the college which issued the forged marksheet, and that neither the advertisement nor the application form required disclosure of an earlier cancellation or a pending criminal case.

The respondents submitted that by concealing the earlier cancellation, the petitioner had secured the 2015 appointment contrary to Rule 11.

The Court held that Rule 11 had been applied on a wrong premise, since the disqualification thereunder is attracted where a person is dismissed from service, and the petitioner was never dismissed or removed under any disciplinary order.

“Such cancellation, though it may have the effect of obliterating the appointment from its inception, cannot, without anything more, be equated with dismissal from service so as to attract a statutory disqualification expressly founded upon dismissal.”

On suppression, the Court held that a candidate can be held guilty of hiding a material fact only once it is shown that the advertisement, application form, declaration, verification form or rules specifically required its disclosure.

It further held that where termination rests on alleged deliberate suppression, the authority cannot bypass the disciplinary procedure under the service rules by calling the action a cancellation of appointment.

“The substance of the action, and not its nomenclature, must determine the procedure to be followed.”

Noting that the forged certificate was neither relied upon nor used for the 2015 appointment, which rested on genuine certificates, the Court held that the allegation of suppression and the petitioner's knowledge of the forgery required independent determination in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.04.2019 was quashed and the writ petition was allowed.

Case Title: Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 others