JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, Devendra Singh has impugned the orders dated 02.11.2019, 15.11.2019 and 31.07.2020, all passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Basti, which, in effect, put an end to his services as an Assistant Teacher (Trained) in the attached Primary Section of Sri Desh Raj Narang Dayanand Inter College, Walterganj, Basti. 2. The impugned orders have come to be made in the background of facts and circumstances hereinafter detailed : Sri Desh Raj Narang Dayanand Inter College, Walterganj, Basti is a recognized and aided institution, teaching scholars from Class I to Class XII. The institution is governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed there under. The institution aforesaid (for short, ‘the institution’) is in receipt of a permanent grant-in-aid from the State Government. Salaries to its teachers and other employees are paid out of State fund under the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and others Employees) Act, 1971 (for short, ‘Act of 1971’). There is no issue about the fact that the teachers working against sanctioned posts in the attached primary section of the institution also receive their salaries from the State Exchequer, under the Act of 1971. 3. There were five sanctioned posts of Assistant Teachers in the attached primary section of the institution. Shorn of unnecessary detail, all these posts fell vacant at the relevant point of time and were advertised by the Committee of Management of the institution, after necessary permission granted for the purpose by the District Inspector of Schools, Basti by his order dated 24.07.2014. There is hardly any cavil about the validating of the selection process through which the petitioner, and the four other selectees alongside him, came to be appointed to the five posts of assistant teachers in the primary section of the institution. 4. What figures as a prominent step in the process of the petitioner’s appointment is an order dated 20.08.2014, by which financial approval was granted to his appointment, besides the four other assistant teachers, about whom there is no issue here. Post approval of the petitioner’s recruitment by the District Inspector of Schools, the Manager of the institution issued a letter of appointment in favour of the petitioner, also on 20.08.2014. The petitioner joined service on 21.08.2014. Post approval of the petitioner’s recruitment by the District Inspector of Schools, the Manager of the institution issued a letter of appointment in favour of the petitioner, also on 20.08.2014. The petitioner joined service on 21.08.2014. There is also no dispute inter partes that the petitioner, after joining with the institution as an Assistant Teacher, discharged his duties all through. 5. It appears that a complaint dated 14.04.2019 was laid against the petitioner by Mr. Sanjay Pratap Jaiswal, the Hon’ble Member, Legislative Assembly from Rudhauli, Basti to the Joint Director of Education, Basti Region, Basti, saying that four candidates appointed to the attached primary section of the institution did not possess the requisite U.P. T.E.T. (Primary Level) qualification, essential for a valid appointment. The Hon’ble Member, Legislative Assembly pointed out that one Chandrakesh Pratap Singh had repeatedly complained in the matter, but no inquiry into the validity of appointments had been made. 6. The Joint Director of Education took cognizance of the M.L.A.’s complaint. He appointed the Finance and Accounts Officer to ascertain the truth of the allegations carried in the complaint. The Inquiry Officer appointed by the Joint Director of Education, submitted a report dated 22.07.2019 to the Joint Director. It appears that the Inquiry Officer found substance in the M.L.A.’s complaint against the petitioner as well as the other teachers, about whom there is no issue here. The Joint Director of Education, considering the fact that the validity of the petitioner’s qualifications was seriously in doubt, but at the same time, the inquiry before him was no more than a preliminary inquiry, directed that all testimonials relating to the petitioner -educational, vocational and others relating to eligibility, be subjected to a verification, both online and offline, and if these be found not verifiable, necessary proceedings be taken to cancel his appointment and to stop further payment of his salary, all to be done after affording the petitioner opportunity of hearing. 7. An inquiry was undertaken into the validity of the petitioner’s training certificates through a formal inquiry initiated for the purpose by the District Inspector of Schools, Basti. What appears from a reading of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 02.11.2019 is that in the inquiry, the petitioner was put to notice a number of times, but he chose not to appear. What appears from a reading of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 02.11.2019 is that in the inquiry, the petitioner was put to notice a number of times, but he chose not to appear. On the basis of verification of records undertaken by the District Inspector of Schools with the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Prayagraj (for short, ‘the Board’), the District Inspector of Schools recorded a finding to the effect that the U.P. Teachers Eligibility Test (Primary Level) certificate claimed by the petitioner, bearing Roll No. 09003193 related to a certain Mohd. Shamim son of Sri Sanaullah, but not to the petitioner. He concluded that the petitioner had not passed the T.E.T. (Primary Level) Examination, relating to which he had produced a certificate issued by the Board. It was also held that the Manager/ Principal of the institution presented the papers for the petitioner’s appointment to the office of the District Inspector of Schools and the then incumbent District Inspector of Schools granted approval without undertaking a verification of the petitioner’s testimonials. The District Inspector of Schools, by his order dated 02.11.2019, made a recommendation that the petitioner’s services be terminated. Acting on his recommendations, the District Inspector of Schools passed a separate order dated 15.11.2019, cancelling the approval earlier granted to the petitioner’s appointment, vide order dated 20.08.2014. 8. Aggrieved by the order dated 02.11.2019 passed by the District Inspector of Schools and the earlier order dated 27.07.2019 passed by the Joint Director of Education, the petitioner instituted Writ -A No.2049 of 2020 before this Court, impugning those orders. One of the contentions urged in the last mentioned writ petition was that the orders, under challenge there, were passed without opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This Court, by an order dated 10.02.2020, disposed of Writ -A No.2049 of 2020 in the following terms: “In the facts and circumstances of the case and without entering into merits of the case, this petition is disposed of directing the concerned authorities to pass appropriate orders in the matter of petitioner strictly in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.” 9. Now, in compliance with this Court’s order dated 10.02.2020 in Writ -A No.2049 of 2020, the District Inspector of Schools undertook a wholesome inquiry, even though the petitioner did not submit a properly drawn up representation in aid of this Court’s order. The District Inspector of Schools fixed dates in the matter, apparently with notice to the parties, that is to say, the Management of the institution and the petitioner, both. The dates fixed were adjourned on more than one occasion. It figures on record that on 27.06.2020, the petitioner stated his case before the District Inspector of Schools through a written statement thereof. It was made out in the representation that the petitioner’s roll number was 90904646 and that he had passed the U.P. T.E.T. Examination, 2011 under the said roll number. The District Inspector of School, on an inquiry into the records, noticed that the petitioner had filed his T.E.T. (Primary Level) Certificate relating to the Examination of 2011 bearing Roll No. 09003193 (Serial No. 3133698), regarding which the District Inspector of Schools had addressed a memo dated 09.10.2019 to the Secretary of the Board for verification. The Secretary of the Board, through his memo dated 16.10.2019, had certified that Roll No. 09003193, the serial number of which was 3133698, related to one Mohd. Shamim son of Sanaullah, an OBC scholar, who had passed the said examination in the year 2011. From this report, the District Inspector of Schools concluded that the petitioner had not passed his T.E.T. (Primary Level) Examination at all. He recorded a finding that the petitioner, Devendra Singh, had presented the T.E.T. (Primary Level) Examination Certificate, bearing Roll No. 09003193, relating to the Examination of the year 2011 at the time that he staked his candidature for the post, which was not valid. 10. The District Inspector of Schools went on to record a finding that in Writ -A No.2049 of 2020, which the petitioner filed, he had annexed a different T.E.T. Examination Certificate for the year 2011, where the roll number indicated was 90904646, bearing Serial No. 3133698. The District Inspector of Schools has remarked that it is this different certificate which the petitioner now relies upon in support of his case. The District Inspector of Schools has remarked that it is this different certificate which the petitioner now relies upon in support of his case. The District Inspector of Schools has recorded the fact that upon the said difference in the certificates, he had sent the certificate, now relied upon by the petitioner, for verification to the Secretary of the Board, vide his memo dated 05.07.2020. The Secretary, on the basis of the Board’s records, through his memo dated 28.07.2020, had returned information to the effect that the T.E.T. Certificate, bearing Roll No. 90904646 and Serial No.3133698, had led him nowhere, inasmuch as there was no Roll No. 90904646 available on the Board’s website for the relevant examination during the year concerned. 11. The District Inspector of Schools, therefore, concluded that these facts clearly show that the petitioner does not hold a valid T.E.T. Certificate. He has, particularly, remarked that the fact that the T.E.T. Examination Certificate relating to the year 2011 relied upon by the petitioner at the time he staked his candidature and the one that he has annexed to the writ petition, both bear the same serial number, that is to say, 3133698, but varying roll numbers make the incongruence irreconcilable. The District Inspector of Schools, therefore, recorded a further finding that both the T.E.T. certificates are got up documents, presented by the petitioner to secure an unfair advantage. The District Inspector of Schools, therefore, rejected the petitioner’s representation by his order dated 31.07.2020. 12. Now, the petitioner challenges the last mentioned order of the District Inspector of Schools, dated 31.07.2020 as the earlier orders dated 02.11.2019 and 15.11.2019, also passed by the District Inspector of Schools. 13. When this petition came on for admission, much was made by Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner about the fact that the petitioner had not been given due opportunity of hearing, to which he was entitled. It was urged by Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was, after all, a duly selected and appointed teacher against a sanctioned post. An inquiry, therefore, ought to have been held by issuing him a charge sheet, where evidence ought to have been led. 14. Mr. It was urged by Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was, after all, a duly selected and appointed teacher against a sanctioned post. An inquiry, therefore, ought to have been held by issuing him a charge sheet, where evidence ought to have been led. 14. Mr. Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned State Law Officer appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 6, on the other hand submitted that it is not a case where the petitioner’s services have been terminated for some misconduct, rather it is the validity of his initial appointment that is beset by fraud vitiating the appointment at its inception. Mr. Upadhyay further submits that an appointment secured through fraud is a nullity. If there was any denial of opportunity, that has been made good under orders of this Court, when the District Inspector of Schools has undertaken a wholesome review of the short issue, whether the petitioner holds a valid Teachers Eligibility Test Certificate from the Board. It is urged by Mr. Upadhyay that in an inquiry conforming to the principles of natural justice and fair play done in the petitioner’s presence, the District Inspector of Schools, on the basis of relevant material, has held that there is absolutely no Teachers Eligibility Test Certificate ever earned by the petitioner to support his candidature. The T.E.T. Examination Certificate for the year 2011, relied upon by the petitioner – the one that was lodged by him at the time of selection and the one appended to the writ petition are both bogus and fraudulent documents, never issued by the Board. In these circumstances, Mr. Upadhyay, learned State Law Officer says that this is not a case where disciplinary proceedings are required to be undertaken. It is a case where the petitioner’s initial retention in service is void. 15. Looking to the issue involved in the petition, which is all about the fact whether the petitioner did earn a Teachers Eligibility Test Certificate from the Board in the year 2011 or not at all, this Court suggested to the parties that the fact may be verified from the Board before this Court. The learned Counsel for both parties agreed to the above course of action. The learned Counsel for both parties agreed to the above course of action. Accordingly, this Court has proceeded to determine this writ petition by consent of parties at the admission stage without going through the formal process of admission, exchange of affidavits and a regular hearing. 16. To the above end, a number of orders were passed by the Court, requiring the Board to disclose their stand about the validity of the petitioner’s certificate in question. Each time, the Board came up with a categorical stand that the petitioner has not earned the certificate in question in the 2011 from the Board at all. Most of the orders that this Court passed, requiring the Secretary of the Board to verify the fact, were made in the face of immense confidence that the petitioner displayed during the course of proceedings about the genuineness of his T.E.T. Certificate, 2011. It would be apposite to refer various orders that were passed by this Court. On 25.11.2020, the following order was made: “Let the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. at Prayagraj represented through its Secretary, respondent no. 5 submit a report whether T.E.T. Examination Certificate for the year 2011 bearing Roll No. 09003193 and Serial No. 3133698 has been issued by them in the name of Devendra Singh S/o Kalika Singh. It will be specifically indicated in the report whether this certificate has been issued by the respondent-Board and is available in their records. The report will bear reference not just to the Board's website but their original records as well. Let the report be submitted on or before 01.12.2020. Lay this matter as fresh again on 01.12.2020. Let this order be communicated to the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. at Prayagraj through its Secretary by the Joint Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours.” 17. Again on 01.12.2020, the following order was passed: “It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the order of this Court dated 25.11.2020, the roll number relating to the petitioner for the T.E.T. Examination and the serial number have been mentioned in error, the error being the same as led the board to earlier response incorrectly. He points out that the T.E.T. certificate for the examination of 2011 that he submitted is on record at page number 44 of the paper book. He points out that the T.E.T. certificate for the examination of 2011 that he submitted is on record at page number 44 of the paper book. It is the said certificate that is required to be verified from the original records of the board. The Madhyamik Shiksha Parisad, U.P. at Prayagraj represented through its Secretary, respondent no. 5 shall submit a report whether T.E.T. Examination Certificate for the U.P. Teachers Eligibility Test, 2011 (Primary Level) bearing Roll No. 90904646 (General Category) and Serial No. 3133698 has been issued by them in the name of Devendra Singh s/o Kalika Singh. It will be specifically indicated in the report whether this certificate has been issued by the respondent-Board and is available in their records. The report will bear reference not just to the Board's website but their original records as well. Let a report be submitted by 07.12.2020. Lay this matter as fresh again on 07.12.2020. Let this order be communicated to the Madhyamik Shiksha Parisad, U.P. at Prayagraj through its Secretary by the Joint Registrar (compliance) today.” 18. Still again on 07.12.2020, the following order was made: “The Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Prayagraj, is directed to appear in person day after tomorrow at 02:00 pm and produce the original records relating to U.P. Teachers Eligibility Test-2011 (Primary Level), bearing Roll No.90904646 (General Category), and Serial No.3133698. A hard copy of the roll number records carrying serials of the roll numbers in the vicinity of the mentioned roll number shall also be produced. The records produced howsoever, bulky shall be a wholesome record and not some truncated part of it. Lay as fresh again on 09.12.2020 at 02:00 pm. Let this order be communicated to the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Prayagraj, by the Joint Registrar (Compliance) today.” 19. In compliance with the order dated 07.12.2020, the Secretary of the Board appeared before the Court and took a definite stand that Roll No. 90904646 relating to the Teachers Eligibility Test, 2011 is a non-existent roll number, which is not there in the records. Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner was equally insistent that his client did appear in the T.E.T. Certificate Examination, 2011 held by the Board under Roll No. 90904646. It was urged with much emphasis by Mr. Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner was equally insistent that his client did appear in the T.E.T. Certificate Examination, 2011 held by the Board under Roll No. 90904646. It was urged with much emphasis by Mr. Singh that whatever records have been produced by the Board, are not complete with Roll No. 90904646 tucked away elsewhere, deliberately hidden from the eyes of the Court. In those circumstances, this Court issued a Commission on 09.12.2020 to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad to undertake a wholesome inspection of the Board’s record, relating to the T.E.T. Certificate Examination, 2011 and determine, whether Roll No. 90904646 is there in the records of the Board and if it is there, the name of the candidate, to whom it relates. The personal presence of the Secretary of the Board was exempted. The order that this Court made on 09.12.2020 is eloquent and extracted below: “The Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj, has appeared before the Court and he states that Roll no.90904646 relating to Teachers Eligibility Test-2011 does not exist on the record of the Board. It is a non-existing roll number relative to the said Examination. Learned Counsel for the petitioner insists that the petitioner has appeared validly under roll no.90904646 at the examination in question and that he has been granted a TET Certificate by the Board, which the Board are wrongfully disowning. The Board have produced a tabulation register, which does not carry roll no.90904646. Learned Counsel for the petitioner says that this is not a complete record and the said roll number may be elsewhere in the records of the Board. The Board are attempting to hide from the Court's eyes the complete record, in particular, the one that carries the petitioner's roll number, that is, 90904646. Since this issue is one which cannot be efficaciously resolved on the basis of the affidavits, this Court considers it expedient to issue a commission to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad to inspect the records of the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj after office hours of the Board on 11.12.2020, and submit a report to this Court doing a thorough inspection as to whether this roll no.90904646 relating to the TET-2011 is there in the records of the Board, and if there, the name of the candidate, to whom it relates. The learned Commission/ the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad shall submit his report to this Court by 15.12.2020. The Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj, who has appeared in person and produced the record, need not appear any further. His appearance is exempted. List this matter on 15.12.2020 in the additional cause list along with the Chief Judicial Magistrate's report. Let this order be communicated to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad through the learned District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad and the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj by the Joint Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours.” 20. In compliance with this Court’s order dated 09.12.2020, Mr. Neeraj Kushwaha, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad undertook a very meticulous and industrious enterprise to inspect the Board’s record and bring out truth, where the stand on both sides had placed the Court to tread on unsure ground. It would be unrequited justice if Mr. Neeraj Kushwaha’s report submitted along with a memo dated 14.10.2020 is not extracted for all its worth. It would be unrequited justice if Mr. Neeraj Kushwaha’s report submitted along with a memo dated 14.10.2020 is not extracted for all its worth. The material part of his report reads: ^^1- fjV la[;k 10106@2020 nsosUnz flag cuke mRrj Áns'k jkT; ,oa N% vU; fnukWafdr 09-12-2020 esa eq>s deh'ku tkjh djrs gq, ek/;fed f’k{kk ifj"kn ds vfHkys[kks dh tkWap bl vk'k; ls djus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k fd D;k vuqØekad la[;k 90904646 tks Vh-b-Vh- 2011 ls lEcf/kr gS] cksMZ ds fjdkMZ esa ekStwn gS vkSj ;fn ekStwn gS rks ml vH;kFkhZ dk uke tks bl vuqØekad ls lEcfU/kr gSA 2- mDr rF;ksa dh tkap gsrq esjs }kjk loZÁFke Vh-bZ-Vh- 2011 esa lfEefyr lHkh vH;kfFkZ;ksa dh lwph tgkWa ls ÁFke vuqØekad 'kq# gksrk gS vkSj vfUre vuqØekad [kRe gksrk gS] fd pkgh x;hA ogkWa ekStwn lfpo ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn ,oa vU; dfeZ;ksa ds }kjk eq>s fjdkMZ #e ys tk;k x;k vkSj ogkWa mDr ifj{kk ls lEcf/kr lHkh e.Myksa ds vfHkys[k esjs le{k j[ks x;sA esjs }kjk lHkh vfHkys[kksa dh tkWap dh x;h] vfHkys[kks ds ns[kus ls ;g irk pyk fd mDr ijh{kk ds fy, Áns'k dks dqy 18 e.My esa foHkkftr fd;k x;k Fkk ,oa ÁR;sd e.My ds fy, nks vadks dk ,d dksM fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k Fkk tks 01]02]03--------------18 rd FkkA vuqØekad ds ÁFke nks vad e.My dks nf'kZr djrs FksA ÁFke e.My esjV Fkk ftlesa vuqØekad la[;k 01000001 ls 01098674 rd vkoafVr Fkk] f}rh; e.My lgkjuiqj Fkk ftlesa vuqØekad la[;k 02000001 ls 02027646 rd vkoafVr Fks] r`rh; e.My vkxjk Fkk ftlesa vuqØekad la[;k 03000001 ls 03084880 rd vkoafVr Fkk] blh Ádkj lEiw.kZ 18 e.Myksa esa vuqØekad ds ÁFke nks vad ml e.My ds dksM ls ÁkjaHk gksdj ml e.My esa dqy lfEefyr vH;kfFkZ;ksa dh la[;k ds vuqlkj e.My okj vuqØekad vkoafVr fd;s x;s FksA 3- vuqØekad dh mDr O;oLFkk dks ns[kus ls gh Li"V gks tkrk gS fd Á'uxr vuqØekad 90904646 okLro esa Vh-bZ-Vh ijh{kk 2011 esa fdlh Hkh vH;kFkhZ dks vkoafVr gks gh ugha ldrk Fkk] D;ksafd 90 fdlh Hkh e.My dk dksM ugha FkkA lEiw.kZ nLrkostksa ds voyksdu ls ;g Li”V Fkk fd Vh-bZ-Vh ijh{kk 2011 esa dksbZ Hkh vuqØekad 01]02]03]04]05]06]--------------------18 ls gh ÁkjaHk gks ldrkk Fkk] tks dqy 18 e.Myksa dks gh Ánf'kZr djrk FkkA Á'uxr vuqØekad 90 ls ÁkjaHk gks jgk gS tks ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn m0Á0 Á;kxjkt esa Vh-bZ-Vh ijh{kk 2011 ijh{kk ls lEcfU/kr leLr ekStwn vfHkys[kksa esa ugha Fkk u gh bu vadks ls ÁkjEHk gksdj dksbZ vuqØekad Vh-bZ-Vh 2011 ijh{kk esa fdlh vH;kFkhZ dks vkaofVr gqvk FkkA 4- pwafd ;g jksy uEcj fdlh Hkh jftLVj esa ekStwn ugha FkkA vr% mDr rF; dh iqf"V gsrq esjs }kjk bysDVªkfud vfHkys[kksa dh Hkh tkWap vko';d le>h x;h vkSj tkWap djokus gsrq lfpo ls dgk x;k] ftl gsrq eq>s ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn ds dEI;wVj #e esa ys tk;k x;k] tgkWa esjs }kjk Vh-bZ-Vh 2011 ls lEcf/kr lkV MkVk csl dks dEI;wVj ij [kqyok; x;k loZÁFke esjs }kjk Á'uxr jksy uEcj 90904646 dks QhM djok;k x;k vkSj lpZ djus ij Kkr gqvk fd lEiw.kZ Vh-bZ-Vh ijh{kk 2011 ds MkVkcsl esa ;g vuqØekad ekStwn ugha gS] rnqijkUr esjs }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k esa of.kZr vH;kFkhZ nsosUnz flag iq= dkfydk flag ds uke ls lpZ djok;k x;k rks mDr uke o firk uke ls dsoy ,d vH;kFkhZ nf'kZr gqvk ftldh tUefrfFk 15-4-1984 Fkh vkSj ftldk vuqØekad 11011114 Fkk u fd 90904646- vkSj og mDr ifj{kk esa vuqRrhZ.k Hkh Fkk rFkk mls vfHkys[k ds vuqlkj dksbZ Áek.ki= Hkh fuxZr ugha gqvk FkkA 5- mijksDr tkWap ds Øe esa esjs le{k lfpo }kjk muds dk;kZy; esa lR;kiu gsrq ÁkIr nsosUnz flag iq= dkfydk flag ds Áek.ki= fn[kk;s x;s ftlesa Ákek.ki= la[;k 3133698 FkkA esjs }kjk mDr Áek.ki= la[;k ds vk/kkj ij Hkh Á'uxr vuqØekad dh tkWap dh x;h rks lkj.kh; iaftdk Vh-bZ-Vh 2011 ijh{kk ls ;g ik;k x;k fd mDr Áek.ki= la[;k vuqØekad la[;k 09003193 eksgEen 'kehe iq= lumYyk dks fuxZr fd;k x;k gS u fd nsosUnz flag iq= dkfydk flag dksA mDr rF; dh iqf"V esjs }kjk bysDVªkfud vfHkys[k ls Hkh dh x;h rks ;g ik;k x;k mDr Áek.ki= la[;k 3133698 nsohikVu e.My ds vuqØekad la[;k 09003193 ds vH;kFkhZ eksgEen ‘kehe iq= lumYyk dks fuxZr fd;k x;k FkkA mijksDr leLr tkWap ls Li"V gS fd Á'uxr vuqØekad la[;k 90904646 Vh-bZ-Vh ijh{kk 2011 esa fdlh vH;kFkhZ dks vkaofVr ugha fd;k x;k vkSn u gh mDr vuqØekad ij dksbZ vH;kFkhZ Vh-bZ-Vh ijh{kk 2011 esa lfEefyr gqvkA** 21. The aforesaid report that was laid before the Court by the office was shown to Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh as well as to Mr. Sharad Chandra Upadhyay. Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on being asked if he had anything more to say in the matter about denial of opportunity, fell short of words. The much ado that he had made about denial of opportunity or the need to undertake disciplinary proceedings, did not figure in the day’s proceeding after the learned Counsel for the petitioner had looked into the learned Commissioner’s report. It can hardly be gainsaid that grant of opportunity has no particular form. It ought to meet the requirements of fair play in the given case. No doubt if a duly appointed employee’s services that are governed by a statutory tenure are to be terminated on the ground of misconduct, disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with law, are a sine quanon. But, it may not be so in a case where the employment is secured through utter fraud. It is well known that fraud vitiates all solemn transaction. Any transaction that is the result of a fraud is a nullity. Fraud is required to be undone, wherever and whenever it is found. This is not to be misunderstood and mistaken by the Authorities as a licence to label any irregularity or illegality as fraud and then short-circuit the procedure prescribed by law to support a particular action. 22. The present case, however, is definitely a case where the petitioner cannot claim that he ought to be proceeded with against in disciplinary proceedings. His is a case where it can safely be said that he was never validly appointed; his appointment is a nullity. It has rightly been undone. Also under the circumstances, the petitioner has been afforded sufficient opportunity. Before this Court, whatever ripples had been created by falsehood and confounding numericals to capitalize on the fraud, have been laid open and bare to the sunshine of truth by Mr. Neeraj Kushwaha’s punctilious examination of the Board’s record, which he has scripted in his report with commendable clarity. 23. In the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs in the sum of Rs.15,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the costs awarded in the Account of the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Prayagraj within six weeks of date. 23. In the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs in the sum of Rs.15,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the costs awarded in the Account of the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Prayagraj within six weeks of date. In the event, the costs are not deposited within the time allowed, on a certification to this effect made by the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Prayagraj to the Collector, Basti, the Collector, Basti is ordered to recover the aforesaid sum of money from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue and credit it immediately upon recovery into the Board’s Account.