The Allahabad High Court has delivered a significant verdict, establishing that the appointment of a candidate who intentionally inflates their academic marks in a recruitment application form is fundamentally illegal. The court ruled that such candidates cannot seek protection under the legal principle of estoppel, even if they have served for several years.
Court Dismisses Petitions, Upholds Termination
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan dismissed the writ petitions filed by Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhary and six others. The petitioners had been selected as assistant teachers in the 2019 recruitment examination and were posted in Kushinagar district. After working for five years, their services were terminated by orders dated May 9, 2025, from the Secretary of the Board of Basic Education, UP, Prayagraj, and May 21, 2025, from the District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar. The sole ground for termination was the mention of increased marks in their original application forms.
Deliberate Act, Not Human Error
The court drew a clear distinction between genuine mistakes and deliberate falsification. It observed that some petitioners had not inflated marks but presented them in a different format, which was considered a bona fide error. However, for those who had entered higher marks, the court was unequivocal.
"Such an act, by any stretch of reasoning, cannot be treated as a mere human error or an inadvertent mistake," Justice Chauhan stated. "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."
The judgment relied on Supreme Court precedents, holding that this deliberate act can alter merit positions. "The candidates' act of furnishing inflated academic marks constitutes a material misrepresentation. Their subsequent appointment is, therefore, vitiated ab initio (from the very beginning)," the court said. It added that the opportunity given for rectification via affidavit does not absolve intentional falsification.
Estoppel Cannot Perpetuate Illegality
The petitioners' counsel argued that their termination was too harsh, especially since they had submitted correct information later via affidavit and had an unblemished five-year service record. They also contended that appointments cannot be cancelled at a later stage.
The High Court rejected this argument firmly. It held that permitting estoppel in such cases would undermine meritocracy, distort the selection process, and displace genuinely more meritorious candidates. "The doctrine of estoppel cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality or to defeat the legitimate expectations of eligible aspirants," the court emphasized.
In its final order dated December 16, the court provided relief only to the four petitioners out of eleven who were found not to have deliberately entered higher marks, quashing their termination orders. For the others, the court held they were not entitled to any relief, and their petitions stood dismissed.
