Cancellation of Appointment for Forged Educational Qualifications Survives Criminal Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court’s Clarification on Eligibility, Natural Justice, and Probation

Case: Ashok Kumar and Anr v. AVVNL and Ors; Swarth Mal v. AVVNL and Ors (2025 RJ-JP 33538)

Court: Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anand Sharma

Date: Reserved on 20.08.2025 | Pronounced on 29.08.2025 | Reportable

Introduction

This judgment addresses a recurring and sensitive question in public employment: what happens when an employee’s very eligibility is impugned upon verification of educational qualifications post-appointment? The petitioners, appointed as Junior Accountant (Probationer Trainee) in Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL) in 2007 on the strength of B.Com degrees purportedly from Magadh University, faced termination in 2011 when the employer’s verification exercise concluded that their credentials were forged. The controversy was sharpened by the fact that the petitioners were later acquitted in related criminal proceedings in 2023.

The Court considered two connected writ petitions challenging AVVNL’s termination orders dated 14.07.2011. The petitioners argued that:

They had been acquitted in criminal proceedings concerning the same documents; therefore the termination could not stand.
Having completed nearly four years, they were deemed confirmed, and hence, termination without a regular inquiry violated principles of natural justice.

AVVNL countered that the petitioners obtained appointment by misrepresentation and forged documents, even submitting a fabricated verification letter purportedly from Magadh University dated 20.10.2008, and that subsequent authentic communications from Magadh University and the affiliated college confirmed the petitioners had never studied there. AVVNL treated the action not as punitive dismissal for misconduct but as cancellation of a void appointment for want of eligibility.

Key issues:

Whether the termination was in substance a punitive dismissal requiring a full-fledged disciplinary inquiry, or a cancellation of appointment owing to ineligibility ab initio.
Whether criminal acquittal on charges related to forgery/cheating neutralizes an employer’s independent finding regarding eligibility.
Whether completion of the probation period without a specific confirmation order leads to deemed confirmation, restricting termination power.
What level of adherence to natural justice is mandated in cases of alleged forged qualifications.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding AVVNL’s orders dated 14.07.2011. It held:

The impugned orders are, in substance, cancellation/withdrawal of appointment due to lack of requisite educational qualifications, not punitive termination for misconduct.
Authentic verification from Magadh University (including communications of 29.09.2010 and 05.07.2011) established that the petitioners’ degrees were not issued by the University/College and that the petitioners had never studied there.
Criminal acquittal (especially one based on benefit of doubt) does not confer eligibility, nor does it bind the employer’s civil/administrative assessment of fitness and qualification.
No vested right accrued to the petitioners; as probationers without an express confirmation order, they could not claim deemed confirmation.
Even if a full disciplinary inquiry was not conducted, the fact-finding verification process and the opportunity given to submit documents sufficed; in fraud cases, strict adherence to natural justice can be relaxed.

Analysis

1) Precedents Cited and Their Influence

a) State of Uttar Pradesh & Others v. Ravindra Kumar Sharma & Others, (2016) 4 SCC 791

The Court quoted and relied on the “fraud vitiates all” line of authorities, notably Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi (2003) 8 SCC 319 and Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1986) 1 SCC 133.
These decisions emphasize that fraud renders acts void ab initio and that equitable doctrines, including principles of natural justice, cannot be used to uphold a tainted act.
Application here: Once it is established through verification that the educational certificates were not issued by the University/College, the appointment—secured on that basis—is non est.

b) Union Of India v. Dattatray & Others (Civil Appeal No. 1639/2008, decided on 15.02.2008)

Following Bank Of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar (2005) 7 SCC 690 and BHEL v. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde (2007) 5 SCC 336, the Supreme Court held that benefits obtained by false certificates cannot be retained; services are liable to be terminated.
Application here: The same rationale applies to forged educational qualifications—eligibility is foundational, and fraud at entry nullifies continuation.

c) Avtar Singh v. Union Of India & Others (2018) 1 SCC 268

Principle: Acquittal in a criminal case does not create a vested right to appointment; suitability remains within the employer’s domain.
Application here: Petitioners’ criminal acquittal (on benefit of doubt) did not preclude AVVNL from concluding ineligibility based on independent document verification.

d) Mohd. Mahroof v. Union of India & Others (SWP No. 3497/2014, J&K & Ladakh High Court, 12.03.2024)

Holds that appointments procured by misrepresentation/forgery are non est; even principles of natural justice need not be mechanically applied.
Application here: Supports the High Court’s view that when the root (eligibility) fails, the edifice (appointment) collapses without necessitating a full disciplinary trial.

e) Petitioners’ Citations Distinguished: Chief General Manager, SBI v. Bijoy Kumar Mishra (1997) 7 SCC 550; V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab (2000) 3 SCC 239; Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary v. IGIMS (2015) 15 SCC 151

The Court noted these dealt with termination/deemed confirmation issues in the probation context—where eligibility was not vitiated by forged documents.
Distinction: Those cases concern procedural fairness in termination of probationers; here, the central issue is ineligibility due to forged qualifications, triggering cancellation rather than punitive removal.

2) Legal Reasoning

Characterization of the Employer’s Action as “Cancellation of Appointment”: The Court repeatedly underscored that AVVNL’s action was not a punitive termination for misconduct under the AVVNL Employees (CC&A) Regulations, 1962. Instead, it was a regulatory response to the discovery that the petitioners never possessed the requisite B.Com qualification. This reframing is crucial, as cancellation of a void appointment (for want of eligibility) does not attract the full panoply of disciplinary protections.
Independent Verification and Evidentiary Basis: The Court found that the employer’s verification through Magadh University was robust and conclusive:
- Magadh University disowned the earlier purported verification letters (including the letter dated 20.10.2008) as not issued/signed by the Controller of Examination (29.09.2010).
- The affiliated college (Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College, Anishabad, Patna) confirmed the petitioners had never been enrolled (leading to University communication dated 05.07.2011).
- The petitioners’ submission of a forged verification letter (20.10.2008) aggravated the inference of misrepresentation.
Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings Does Not Cure Ineligibility: The Court emphasized the different standards of proof in criminal law (“beyond reasonable doubt”) versus administrative/civil fact-finding (“preponderance of probabilities”). An acquittal, especially on benefit of doubt, neither establishes genuineness of documents nor confers qualification. Citing Avtar Singh, the Court reaffirmed that acquittal does not create a vested right to appointment.
Natural Justice and Fraud Cases: The Court held that the petitioners were afforded opportunity to submit original documents and even sought to validate them through a (fake) letter they produced. Moreover, the employer conducted a fact-finding verification with the issuing authority. In fraud-tainted appointments, strict application of natural justice can be relaxed; the priority is to protect the integrity of public employment. In any event, where the appointment is void ab initio, no vested right exists to insist on a full departmental inquiry.
No Deemed Confirmation Without Express Order: The petitioners’ plea that four years of service led to deemed confirmation failed. The Court noted the absence of any specific confirmation order and that the appointment’s very foundation—eligibility—had collapsed. Lapse of time cannot validate a void appointment.

3) Impact and Prospective Significance

Public Employment Integrity: The decision fortifies employers’ authority to conduct rigorous post-appointment verification and to cancel appointments grounded on forged/invalid qualifications, even if significant time has elapsed.
Reduced Spillover from Criminal Courts: By sharply distinguishing criminal standards from administrative assessments, the judgment prevents criminal acquittals—particularly on benefit of doubt—from immunizing employees against civil consequences of ineligibility.
Procedural Economy in Fraud Cases: The Court’s acceptance of a structured fact-finding verification (without full disciplinary inquiry) in cases of forged credentials offers a pragmatic template for employers, provided the verification is authentic, traceable to source, and well-documented.
Probation Jurisprudence Clarified: The judgment reiterates that probationers do not secure deemed confirmation absent a formal order, especially where the basic eligibility is in dispute.
Compliance Messaging: Employees and candidates are put on notice that misrepresentation at the entry stage can undo appointments regardless of service length and subsequent criminal case outcomes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Cancellation of Appointment vs. Punitive Termination:
- Cancellation occurs when the initial appointment is void because the candidate was never eligible (e.g., forged degree). It undoes the appointment ab initio.
- Punitive termination is a disciplinary penalty for misconduct committed by a validly appointed employee and usually requires a formal inquiry.
Fraud vitiates all: If an act (like appointment) was obtained by fraud, the law treats it as null from the start. Protective procedural rules cannot be invoked to preserve a fraudulent benefit.
Standard of Proof:
- Criminal cases: proof “beyond reasonable doubt.” Acquittal can occur due to reasonable uncertainty.
- Administrative/Civil matters: “Preponderance of probabilities.” An employer can act if evidence convincingly points to ineligibility, even if it might not meet criminal standards.
Benefit of Doubt vs. Honourable Acquittal:
- Benefit of doubt means the court was not convinced beyond reasonable doubt; it does not amount to a clean vindication.
- Even an honourable acquittal does not automatically confer eligibility; under Avtar Singh, suitability remains for the employer to assess.
Probation and Deemed Confirmation: Serving beyond a probation period does not automatically confirm an employee unless rules/letters explicitly provide so or a confirmation order is issued. Where eligibility is absent, the concept of confirmation is moot.

Conclusion

The Rajasthan High Court’s decision provides a clear, principled roadmap for addressing fraudulent entry into public employment:

Eligibility is foundational. If a candidate’s qualification is forged or not issued by the competent authority, the appointment is void ab initio and can be cancelled without a full disciplinary process.
Criminal acquittal is not a shield. Particularly where acquittal is based on benefit of doubt, it does not preclude administrative findings of ineligibility; nor does it bestow qualifications one never possessed.
Natural justice is contextual. In cases of fraud, a documented, source-based verification and an opportunity to submit documents suffice; elaborate inquiries are not mandatory.
No deemed confirmation. Absent an express order, and especially where eligibility is in question, probation does not mature into confirmation by efflux of time.

Anchored in Supreme Court precedent on fraud and eligibility, the judgment strengthens the legal architecture ensuring integrity in public appointments. It will likely serve as persuasive guidance for employers and courts handling disputes over forged educational credentials and the collateral effect of criminal proceedings on service matters.