The Allahabad High Court ruled that where a candidate deliberately enters marks higher than those actually secured, thereby placing himself/herself in a position of unwarranted advantage and ultimately securing an appointment, such an 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, added the Court.
The Court explained that the candidates’ act of furnishing inflated academic marks constitutes a material misrepresentation. Their subsequent appointment is, therefore, vitiated ab initio. The Court also clarified that the opportunity given for rectification cannot absolve the candidates of intentional falsification.
No estoppel can arise to protect a fundamentally illegal appointment when the very foundation of the appointment stands vitiated by misrepresentation, pointed out the Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed that the petitioners deliberately inflated the marks obtained by them in their academic examinations while submitting their application forms for the posts of Assistant Teacher. Such inflation of marks placed them in an artificially enhanced position in the merit list, thereby enabling them to secure appointments to a public post to which they were not legitimately entitled.
The Bench differentiated between candidates who deliberately entered higher marks to gain an “advantageous position” and those whose errors were bonafide and did not result in an undue advantage. The Bench emphasised that entering marks higher than actually secured is a conscious act that materially alters a candidate’s position in the merit list and cannot be trivialised as a human error.
The Bench also pointed out that the doctrine of estoppel cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality or to protect an appointment obtained through misrepresentation. An employment secured by deceit is voidable, and neither the length of service nor any administrative oversight can grant it legitimacy.
Briefly, the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers following the ATRE 2019. They were selected, allotted to the Kushinagar district, and participated in counselling. Although some initial discrepancies were noted, these were addressed through Government Orders that required candidates to furnish individual affidavits. After this process, the petitioners were issued appointment letters, joined their services, and had been working for approximately five years before their services were terminated.
The petitioners, therefore, challenged the termination orders, which ended their services as Assistant Teachers. The termination was based on the grounds that the petitioners had entered higher marks in their application forms for the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination 2019 (ATRE 2019) than they had actually obtained.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, for the Petitioner
CSC Archana Singh, for the Petitioner
