JUDGMENT : Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri H.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, Sri Radha Kant Ojha, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi and Smt. Arti Raje, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Rama Nand Pandey, Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Rajiv Singh is appearing for the State Government, Sri Ashok Mehta, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gagan Mehta is appearing for the Agra University and Sri J.N. Maurya, learned counsel is appearing for the U.P. Education Board/Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The batch of appeals have been filed to assail the judgment dated 29.04.2020 whereby bunch of writ petitions were decided. The writ petitions were filed to challenge the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer by which the appointments of the petitioners/appellants on the post of Assistant Teacher were cancelled/terminated. It was alleged that appointments sought were based on fake or tampered mark-sheets/degrees of B.Ed. Examination, 2005. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AND PREVIOUS LITIGATION The facts available on record and taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge, reflect that the education was made a saleable product by the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra (for short “University”) and thereby the candidates, who even did not appear in B.Ed. Examination, 2005 were conferred with the mark-sheet and degree. The other allegation is for tampering of marks apart from candidates having same roll numbers on the mark-sheets. The efface of the University came in the knowledge of the Court when a writ petition was filed by one Sunil Kumar bearing Writ Petition No. 2906 of 2013 on issuance of two mark-sheets to him by the University for B.Ed. Examination 2005. The learned Single Judge hearing the said writ petition directed the University to produce the tabulation sheets of B.Ed. Examination, 2005. In pursuance to the direction aforesaid, the tabulation sheets were produced. It was not bearing signature of any authorized officer/person of the University. The learned Single Judge hearing the said writ petition passed an order on 28.02.2013 directing the Vice Chancellor of the University to file an affidavit in respect to the B.Ed. Examination 2005. The affidavit was sworn. The learned Single Judge observed cross list/tabulation sheets to be manufactured documents in absence of signature of the officer. The learned Single Judge hearing the said writ petition passed an order on 28.02.2013 directing the Vice Chancellor of the University to file an affidavit in respect to the B.Ed. Examination 2005. The affidavit was sworn. The learned Single Judge observed cross list/tabulation sheets to be manufactured documents in absence of signature of the officer. It was admitted by the University that tabulation sheets/cross list are always signed by the authorized officer/person otherwise it cannot be accepted as genuine. In pursuance to the subsequent order dated 28.02.2013, the then Vice Chancellor Professor D.N. Jauhar filed an affidavit stating that a three member inquiry committee was constituted on the receipt of the complaint and information regarding manipulation and discrepancies in the mark charts. The committee found following discrepancies-: (i) Font of computer printing on some pages are different from other pages; (ii) Font quality on paper used in different pages defers; (iii) The signature of authorized person of agency was also found different on different pages. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition of Sunil Kumar passed another order on 23.01.2014 for impartial inquiry into the affairs of the University in regard to B.Ed. Examination, 2005. In pursuance to the order dated 23.01.2014, the State Government constituted a Special Investigation Team (For short “S.I.T.”). The writ petition of Sunil Kumar was then treated to be a Public Interest Litigation, thus to be placed before the Division Bench. After referring the matter to the Division Bench, the record of said writ petition was not found traceable, thus matter could not be heard for further direction. The file was reconstituted in the year 2020 pursuant to the order of the Court. The S.I.T. constituted by the State Government submitted its report dated 14.08.2017 before this Court after the investigation. As per the report, the allegation of issuance of fake mark-sheets apart from tampered mark-sheets were found based on the material collected during the course of investigation/inquiry. After receipt of the report from the S.I.T., the University as well as the State Government decided to take action in the matter. The Director of Basic Education issued show cause notice to the petitioners/appellants. The show cause notice was challenged by a Writ Petition (A) No. 56739 of 2017 (Smt. Suryavati and 150 others Vs. State of U.P. and 24 others). An interim order was passed therein to continue the petitioners/appellants with payment of salary. The Director of Basic Education issued show cause notice to the petitioners/appellants. The show cause notice was challenged by a Writ Petition (A) No. 56739 of 2017 (Smt. Suryavati and 150 others Vs. State of U.P. and 24 others). An interim order was passed therein to continue the petitioners/appellants with payment of salary. The Court, however, allowed the Department to proceed in the matter in accordance to Rules. It was followed by large number of writ petitions. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari passed the order of termination pursuant to the show cause notice. It was challenged separately by maintaining a writ petition. The first writ petition for it was Writ A No. 20244 of 2018 (Santosh Kuamr and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). The said writ petition was dismissed by the judgment dated 20.09.2018. The judgment in the case of Santosh Kumar (supra) was challenged by maintaining an appeal where an interim order was passed. The University also proceeded in the matter and accordingly a notice was published in the news papers requiring the doubtful candidates to submit reply to the questionnaire supported by material. The validity of the show cause notice of the University was also challenged by Writ A No. 486 of 2020 (Tilak Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by its judgment dated 20.01.2020 with a direction to the University to proceed further in the matter. In pursuance to the show cause notice given by the University, majority of candidates, alleged to have fake mark-sheets, did not submit any reply and in few cases, reply was submitted with incomplete information and documents or after the last date for it. Only 18 candidates/students submitted proper reply along with documents. The University cancelled B.Ed. degree of 2823 candidates by the order dated 07.02.2020, who failed to submit reply. The order dated 07.02.2020 was passed during the pendency of the writ petition. It was brought on record by way of an affidavit by the University. The hearing of the writ petition commenced thereafter on different dates. The arguments were concluded on 06.03.2020 and thereupon the impugned judgment was pronounced on 29.04.2020. The learned Single Judge decided the batch of writ petitions with certain directions in paragraph 69 of the impugned judgment which has been assailed by the appellants herein. The hearing of the writ petition commenced thereafter on different dates. The arguments were concluded on 06.03.2020 and thereupon the impugned judgment was pronounced on 29.04.2020. The learned Single Judge decided the batch of writ petitions with certain directions in paragraph 69 of the impugned judgment which has been assailed by the appellants herein. In few appeals, there is delay and in few appeals, an application to seek leave for appeal has been submitted. The application for condonation of delay so as the leave to appeal are allowed as otherwise no objection to it has been raised by the side opposite. It is looking to the fact that few appeals have been preferred within limitation, thus, would be decided on 7 merits and judgments therein would apply on all the appeals and accordingly even leave to appeal is granted because the applicants are either effected by the impugned judgment or in their pending writ petitions they cannot get result unless judgment in question is set aside. Thus, prayed for leave and accordingly granted for the ends of justice. Accordingly, all the appeal were heard together. Before we proceed to refer to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, it would be material to refer judgment in the case of Tilak Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A 468 of 2020. The said writ petition was decided by the judgment dated 20.01.2020. It is without causing interference the show cause notice given by the University though certain formalities were interfered which were basically to have verification of documents through the Principal etc. but no interference in the material information sought by the University was caused rather a direction was given to the University to proceed in the matter in regard to the degrees which are alleged to be forged. The procedure given under Section 67 of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 was not required to be applied for fake degrees though it was mandated for the tampered mark-sheet. All the facts narrated above are relevant and otherwise summarised by the counsel for the appellants. ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS Learned counsel submits that the appellants were appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher after undergoing the selection as per U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 (in short “Rules of 1973”). All the facts narrated above are relevant and otherwise summarised by the counsel for the appellants. ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS Learned counsel submits that the appellants were appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher after undergoing the selection as per U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 (in short “Rules of 1973”). All the appellants were thus regular employees and even granted promotion during the intervening period. They could not have terminated from service without a departmental enquiry under the U.P. Government Servant (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (In short “Rules of 1999”). They could not have been terminated from service only by serving a show cause notice. Learned Single Judge failed to consider this aspect of the matter. The 8 show cause notice was even stayed in the set of another litigation initiated by Suryavati and 150 others (supra). During currency of the interim order, the respondents could not have proceeded to pass termination order. It is more so when there was no material with the State Government to infer B.Ed. degrees of the appellants either fake or tampered. The State Government could not have relied on the report submitted by the S.I.T. It was barely an opinion of the S.I.T. thus could not have been treated to be substantive piece of evidence. The report of the S.I.T. would be tested by the court in the criminal trial. Thus, the sole basis to terminate the services of the appellants was not made out. It is further urged that the learned Single Judge could not have decided the writ petition in reference to the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the University to cancel the degrees finding it to be fake, as no opportunity was given to them to assail the order dated 07.02.2020. It is despite their request. The learned Single Judge decided the writ petition after taking adverse inference pursuant to the order of the University dated 07.02.2020 cancelling the degrees of the appellants. The Court should have given opportunity to challenge the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the University. The learned Single Judge has even drawn a statement to classify the number of candidates obtained fake mark-sheets while others having tampered mark-sheets. The third category is of the candidates having mark-sheets with same roll numbers. The Court should have given opportunity to challenge the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the University. The learned Single Judge has even drawn a statement to classify the number of candidates obtained fake mark-sheets while others having tampered mark-sheets. The third category is of the candidates having mark-sheets with same roll numbers. The statement of candidates given in the judgment should not be relied as otherwise S.I.T. has given data on their own assumption. The appellants have challenged S.I.T. report in the case of Sunil Kumar (Supra) which petition was converted into Public Interest Litigation and is yet to be decided. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellants have not challenged the S.I.T. report is thus perversed. The learned Single Judge has relied the judgment in the case of Tilak Singh (Supra) though the said writ petition was against the show cause notice given by the University, thus dismissed. The judgment in the case of Tilak Singh (Supra) has not decided any issue pertaining to the case rather directed the University to proceed further in the matter, thus no final decision was given holding certain mark-sheet to be fake or tampered. The learned Single Judge should not have relied on the judgment in the case of Tilak Singh (Supra). The report of S.I.T. considered by learned Single Judge was based on superficial mathematical calculation. No supporting material exist to arrive at the calculation of eligible candidates for B.Ed. Examination, 2005 with the figures students actually appeared followed by declaration of the result of excess candidates. The S.I.T. had failed to take note of the judgment of Lucknow Bench in the case of Shri Puran Prasad Gupta Memorial Degree College Vs. State of U.P. dated 06.04.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.399 (M.B.) 2007 wherein a direction was given to declare the result of additional students. The S.I.T. failed to take note of those students while making calculation of the studens appeared in the examination. Thus, there was no reason for the learned Single Judge to place reliance on the S.I.T. report. State of U.P. dated 06.04.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.399 (M.B.) 2007 wherein a direction was given to declare the result of additional students. The S.I.T. failed to take note of those students while making calculation of the studens appeared in the examination. Thus, there was no reason for the learned Single Judge to place reliance on the S.I.T. report. It is also submitted that even if the learned Single Judge was to proceed with a matter in reference to the order dated 07.05.2020 passed by the University cancelling the degrees, it should not have been in ignorance of the fact that out of total 3637 candidates, 814 candidates had submitted reply but while passing the order dated 07.02.2020, the University cancelled the degree of all the candidates without giving any reason. The order dated 07.02.2020 should not have been relied by the learned Single Judge. So far as finding regarding tampered mark-sheet is concerned, the judgment of learned Single Judge is in ignorance of the fact the candidates had no access to the record of the University to become instrument to 10 tamper the mark-sheet. In fact mark-sheets were issued immediately with declaration of result. Thus, there was no occasion for any candidates to tamper the mark-sheet. The tampering of mark-sheets in fact did not effect even the candidature to seek appointments on the post of the Assistant Teacher as it was based on the selection test where all the candidates remained successful. It was also stated that if candidates were involved in tampering of the mark-sheets, their marks would not have been reduced whereas in many cases, marks of the candidates were less compared to the marks in the foil recovered by the S.I.T. Thus, allegation of tampering of mark-sheet was not even made out. The allegation of tampering of the mark-sheets is also without any basis as neither tabulation sheets were available nor original marks foil were recovered by the S.I.T. The record seized by the S.I.T. is lying with it or with the Registrar of High Court. The original marks foil may accordingly be called to consider the argument aforesaid. In view of above, termination order should have been interfered by the learned Single Judge. The original marks foil may accordingly be called to consider the argument aforesaid. In view of above, termination order should have been interfered by the learned Single Judge. The denial of wages during the intervening period till the University passes the order after compliance of the procedure given under Section 67 of the State Universities Act, 1973 in regards to tampered mark sheets is also illegal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that if a direction is given to the University to pass an order in regard to tampered mark-sheets after following the procedure given under Section 67 of the Act, then appellants would have no grievance rather submitted that subject to the outcome of the order pursuant to it, the order of termination be governed. If the decision of the University comes adverse to them then they would not question their termination order but in case of favourable report, it should be interfered thus appropriate order for it may be passed. It is also submitted that the marks foil recovered by the SIT is not of all the papers of B.Ed. Examination rather is of two papers only. The 11 aforesaid should not have been taken to be a decisive factor to hold marksheets to be tampered. Some of the counsel of the appellants even challenged the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the University cancelling B.Ed. degrees of 2005 of 2823 candidates. It is submitted that the University proceeded to pass the order dated 07.02.2020 solely based on the report of SIT. It is by presuming admission of the allegation by the candidates in absence of reply to show cause notice containing a questionnaire. The University could not have cancelled the degrees only in reference to the report of SIT. Thus the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the University may also be interfered. The learned counsel pressing the appeal for challenge to the order dated 07.02.2020 submitted that an opportunity to challenge the said order was not given by the learned Single Judge, thus it has been challenged in these appeals. One set of the counsel appearing for the appellants, however, submitted that they do not prefer to challenge the order dated 07.02.2020 in these appeals as for that separate writ petitions can be filed or even filed. One set of the counsel appearing for the appellants, however, submitted that they do not prefer to challenge the order dated 07.02.2020 in these appeals as for that separate writ petitions can be filed or even filed. The fact however remains that one set of the appellants have challenged the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the University and accordingly, we need to decide the issue aforesaid, otherwise this judgment may be criticized alleging that despite a challenge to the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the University, consideration of argument has not been made by us. Accordingly, we proceed to determine all the issues raised before us not only in reference to the challenge to the judgment of the learned Single Judge but the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the University. No other arguments have been raised by the appellants other than what have been mentioned above. The written arguments have been submitted by the counsel but we are confining to the oral argument before this Court and otherwise the written arguments should have been confined to the oral argument made before this Court. The prayer of learned counsel for appellants is to set aside the termination order so as the judgment of learned Single Judge or pass any other appropriate order in the fitness of the case. The order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the University may also be quashed. Learned counsel for the appellants have cited judgments to support their arguments which would be referred by this Court while recording finding on the rival submission of the parties. The prayer of learned counsel for appellants is to consider the documents submitted on the direction of this Court to show that the candidates were having required documents to show their admission in the college followed by payment of fee apart from issuance of admit cards for appearance in the examination followed by other documents to show their appearance in the examination. At this stage, it is also stated that University has passed an order to cancel remaining fake mark-sheets and degrees other than of two students by the order dated 27.07.2020. It is out of 814 students/candidates. ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR SIDE OPPOSITE Per contra, the contest to the appeals has been made by the counsel appearing for the State and the University. The have supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It is out of 814 students/candidates. ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR SIDE OPPOSITE Per contra, the contest to the appeals has been made by the counsel appearing for the State and the University. The have supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It is submitted by the Senior Counsel appearing for the University that pursuant to the direction of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar (supra), the University had initially constituted a Committee of three members. The Committee found that font of the cross sheet/tabulation sheet is different on certain pages. It is apart from the different font size in the cross sheet/tabulation register. The University, thus realized manipulation and malpractices in the B.Ed. examination of 2005. It decided to proceed against the officers involved in the manipulations. The matter was referred to SIT by the State Government for investigation followed by a report in the light of the direction in the case of Sunil Kumar (supra). On the receipt of the report from S.I.T., the State 13 Government gave direction to University to proceed in the matter and accordingly the University decided to issue show cause notice to the candidates by publishing it in the newspaper requiring the candidates to submit their reply to the questionnaire with supporting material. The show cause notice was challenged by Tilak Singh and 495 other candidates. The writ petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.01.2020 with a direction to the University to proceed in the matter of fake mark-sheets without observing Section 67 of the Act of 1973 but for tampered marksheets, to proceed under Section 67 of the Act of 1973. The University accordingly proceeded in compliance to the judgment in the case of Tilak Singh (supra) as the judgment in the said case was not challenged thus attained finality. In pursuance to the notice published in the newspaper, reply was submitted only by 814 candidates within the time prescribed for it. It was out of 4766 candidates which was for fake degree as well as tampered. 2823 candidates did not send reply to show cause notice while 814 candidates sent the reply, however out of 814 also 796 candidates did not submit complete information sought in the show cause notice. Only 18 candidates submitted proper reply with material. The University thus proceeded to pass order dated 07.02.2020 holding that 2823 students are having fake degrees. 2823 candidates did not send reply to show cause notice while 814 candidates sent the reply, however out of 814 also 796 candidates did not submit complete information sought in the show cause notice. Only 18 candidates submitted proper reply with material. The University thus proceeded to pass order dated 07.02.2020 holding that 2823 students are having fake degrees. It is thus incorrect to state that by the order dated 07.02.2020, all the degrees were declared fake, which includes the degrees of 814 candidates. It is also incorrect that the University has declared 2823 candidates to be fake based on the report of the SIT. In fact, the report of the SIT was the basis to initiate the action and accordingly proper questionnaire was prepared by the University to independently assess the allegations. The failure of the candidates to submit the reply was taken adverse. There was no reason for the candidates not to submit reply to the notice with relevant materials. The University proceeded in the matter pursuant to the direction of the Court in the case of Tilak Singh (supra). Thus there is no illegality in the order dated 07.02.2020. 14 The appellants have not submitted any material even while filing the appeal and direction of this Court other than seven candidates those who had even submitted reply to the show cause notice. The learned counsel for the University has given details of all the students who could have appeared in B.Ed. Examination of 2005. It is by referring to the number of institutions recognized by the N.C.T. and the students to be admitted by each of the institutions. It is submitted that out of total 82 institutions having recognition from the N.C.T., each was entitle to admit 100 students, 50 percent through management quota and 50 percent through counselling or 15 percent through management quota and 85 percent through counselling. A controversy regarding quota through counselling came in reference to 25 self-financed/unaided colleges which was subject matter of litigation and pursuant to which, many self-financed/unaided colleges, were permitted to admit 135 students. The university however declared the final results keeping in mind the intake of each institution though 135 students appeared in many self-financed institutions. A controversy regarding quota through counselling came in reference to 25 self-financed/unaided colleges which was subject matter of litigation and pursuant to which, many self-financed/unaided colleges, were permitted to admit 135 students. The university however declared the final results keeping in mind the intake of each institution though 135 students appeared in many self-financed institutions. Thus, as per the direction of the Court in the case of Sri Puram Prasad Gupta Memorial Degree College (supra), by the judgment dated 06.04.2007, result of all the students, who appeared in the examination was declared. Taking aforesaid to be an input, it is submitted that maximum 9075 students could have appeared in the examination if it is figured out with 100 students for all the 82 colleges coming to 8200 with addition of 35 students for 25 self-financed/unaided institutions coming to 875 totalling to 9070. It is the maximum number of students though, admission was given to 8899 students. 8899 students appeared in the examination out of which 869 were those who were admitted in excess to the approved strength of 100 students pursuant to the direction of the Lucknow Bench. In fact, in all the self-financed/unaided institutions, total excess admission were 869 15 against 35 additional seats given to it. As against 8899 students appeared in the examination, the result of 8930 students was declared thereby it was in excess by 31 students. The marks foil recovered by the S.I.T. proves the fact aforesaid. The original marks foil was seen by the Court as well as counsel for the appellants during the course of argument. The tabulation chart/cross sheet of the University was however containing result of 12472 students. In the light of the fact aforesaid, even the counsel for the appellants have admitted that result in the tabulation sheet is in excess to students appeared in the examination even pursuant to the direction of Bench at Lucknow. The question however raised by them is that the excess students may not be the appellants but others. It is submitted that S.I.T. made report based on the record recovered by them from the University. The material recovered by the S.I.T. was input for the action and thereby University had issued show cause notice to verify the truth after giving an opportunity to the students. The students failed to send reply to the questionnaire with material. It is submitted that S.I.T. made report based on the record recovered by them from the University. The material recovered by the S.I.T. was input for the action and thereby University had issued show cause notice to verify the truth after giving an opportunity to the students. The students failed to send reply to the questionnaire with material. They were accordingly declared to be fake students as otherwise they would have given the reply to the questionnaire. It is more so when this Court in the case of Tilak Singh (supra) directed the University to proceed with the matter in regard to fake students and judgment in that case has already attained finality. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly drawn conclusion about the fake students and for that there is no basis to challenge the order dated 07.02.2020. The petitioners/appellants have not submitted any material or documents pursuant to questionnaire even while challenging the order of termination passed by the State Government or now the order dated 07.02.2020 other than by few. It is even while filing the appeal despite an opportunity for it. The documents have been filed only by few students who had otherwise submitted their reply pursuant to the show cause notice of the University. Thus, other than few students, who are maximum 18 in number, none has produced any material before 16 the Court to show truthfulness of their appearance in the examination. Accordingly, no basis remains to cause interference in the order dated 07.02.2020 and the order passed by learned Single Judge. The University has even passed an order dated 27.07.2020 to declare 812 students to be fake out of 814 students. It is also stated that University has proceed to cause disciplinary inquiry against those involved in the racket. So far as the allegation of tampering of the mark-sheets is concerned, the University would proceed to take action after applying Section 67 of the Act of 1973. Learned counsel has even made a reference of the F.I.R. registered against those indulged in issuance of fake mark-sheets so as the tampered. The charge-sheet has also been filed pursuant to four F.I.Rs. It is also stated that a Committee under the Chairmanship of a retired Judge was constituted to fix the responsibilities of those officers involved in this case and accordingly respondents would proceed to take action against all those officers involved in this case. The charge-sheet has also been filed pursuant to four F.I.Rs. It is also stated that a Committee under the Chairmanship of a retired Judge was constituted to fix the responsibilities of those officers involved in this case and accordingly respondents would proceed to take action against all those officers involved in this case. Learned counsel for the University further submits that during the course of hearing of the case of Sunil Kumar (supra), it was noticed that three bags of fake mark-sheets were found at the residence of Principal of one affiliated college of the University. The fact aforesaid was flashed even in the newspaper, thus, the conduct of the then officer of the University and the students is writ large. In view of the above, this Court may not cause interference in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel appearing for the University has made further argument and it would be elaborately discussed during the course of consideration of the rival arguments to avoid repetition. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has also supported the judgment of learned Single Judge. It is submitted that in pursuance to the direction of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar (supra), criminal racket involved in issuance of the fake and tampered mark-sheets came in the notice of the State Government. It may be when a writ petition was filed by Sunil Kumar showing two mark-sheets issued to him for B.Ed. Examination, 2005. The reference of the case to the S.I.T. was pursuant to the direction of the Court and accordingly State Government constituted 5 members to investigate the affairs of the University in reference to the B.Ed. Examination of 2005. The S.I.T. had given detailed report in reference to the material collected by it during the course of investigation. It could recover the material which includes marks foil to draw its report finding cases not only of tampering but issuance of the fake mark-sheets. It was also for issuance of mark-sheets to the students with same roll number. On the receipt of the report, the Government issued direction not only to the University but even to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari for appropriate action. The show cause notice was issued and when reply to it was not found satisfactory, passed the order of termination finding case of obtaining service based on the forged or tampered mark-sheets. On the receipt of the report, the Government issued direction not only to the University but even to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari for appropriate action. The show cause notice was issued and when reply to it was not found satisfactory, passed the order of termination finding case of obtaining service based on the forged or tampered mark-sheets. The writ petition was then filed by the appellants but therein also, they failed to supply material to prove their appearance in B.Ed. Examination of 2005. Seven appellants have produced the material pursuant to the direction of this Court to show their appearances in B.Ed. Examination 2005. It is while three other failed to produce document to prove their appearance in the Examination 2005. This itself is enough to show that even the petitioners/appellants failed to produce any material before the Court to prove their appearance in the Examination of 2005 so as to challenge the allegation of obtaining fake mark-sheets. The racket was involved in this case has been admitted even by the appellants realising that as against the intake capacity of each college with additional seats permitted by the High Court, the total students could not have been 12,472. The question however raised is as to whether the excess students having forged mark-sheets are the petitioners/appellants or others. The argument aforesaid has been raised without realising that to prove genuineness of B.Ed. degree, appellants failed to produce material in reference to the show cause notice before the order of termination and even along with the writ petition. Thus, truthfulness of the allegation against the petitioners/appellants gets satisfied on the face of record. In view of the above, the challenge to the judgment may not be accepted. Learned Additional Advocate General has further submitted that for passing the order of termination, Regulations of 1999 were not required to be applied. The appointment taken based on the forged or tampered marksheets were void. The compliance of Regulation of 1999 is not envisaged in such cases rather for that the Government was not even required to issue a show cause notice. However, to provide an opportunity to submit the necessary documents to prove appearance in the B.Ed. Examination, 2005, a show cause notice was given. The order of termination was passed thereupon when appellant failed to give satisfactory reply supported with material. However, to provide an opportunity to submit the necessary documents to prove appearance in the B.Ed. Examination, 2005, a show cause notice was given. The order of termination was passed thereupon when appellant failed to give satisfactory reply supported with material. It is thus incorrect to state that the order of termination is simply based on the S.I.T. report. It is also submitted that merely for the reason that petitioners/appellants are in service for the last 10 to 15 years would not vitiate the action taken by the State as the foundation of appointment is based on forgery. Such appointments remain void ab-initio and thereby the learned Single Judge has rightly refused to cause interference in the order of termination. The learned Additional Advocate General cited the judgments to support the argument which would be referred at the time of discussion of rival submissions. Learned Additional Advocate General has further given reply to all the arguments raised by the learned counsel for appellants for challenge to 19 the judgment of learned Single Judge which could also be referred at the time of dealing with the arguments to avoid bulkiness of the judgment. DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES BY THE COURT We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. It is a case where District Basic Education Officer passed an order of termination/cancellation of the appointments given to the appellants on the post of Assistant Teacher on the ground that appointments were sought based on fake or tampered mark-sheets of B.Ed. Examination, 2005. The termination/cancellation of the appointments were after giving opportunity of hearing by serving a show cause notice. The order of termination/cancellation of appointments of the appellants was challenged by maintaining a writ petition. The learned Single Judge found appointment based on fake mark-sheets of B.Ed. Examination, 2005 so as the tampered. The fact about issuance of fake or tampered mark-sheets came to the notice of the respondents when S.I.T. made investigation pursuant to the case registered on the direction of this Court in the writ petition filed by one Sunil Kumar (supra). The brief detail of the litigation thereupon has been given but needs to be reiterated for ready reference. The fact about issuance of fake or tampered mark-sheets came to the notice of the respondents when S.I.T. made investigation pursuant to the case registered on the direction of this Court in the writ petition filed by one Sunil Kumar (supra). The brief detail of the litigation thereupon has been given but needs to be reiterated for ready reference. The brief facts pertaining to the case show that on a writ petition filed by one Sunil Kumar (supra), this Court passed orders from time to time to direct the University not only to file affidavit but constitution of the investigation team by the State Government in regard to B.Ed. Examination 2005 conducted by the University. It is on finding manipulation in the B.Ed. Examination, 2005. Pursuant to the direction of the Court, S.I.T. conducted investigation followed by a report. The F.I.R. was registered for offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 204, 201 read with 120 I.P.C. and 13 (1) (d), 13 (2) and 13 (3) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The charge sheet in all the cases has been filed other than one. The judgment of learned Single Judge has been challenged by the appellants on the ground that non interference in the order of termination from the service is mainly in reference to the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the University declaring 2823 degrees to be fake. It is without realising that the order dated 07.02.2020 was passed during the pendency of the writ petition. The appellants had no opportunity to challenge it. The judgment of learned Single Judge in reference to dismissal of the writ petition of 2823 candidates has been questioned on the aforesaid ground apart from many other grounds. We would be dealing with each of the arguments raised by the counsel for parties. The first argument raised by counsel for the appellant is in reference to the Regulation of 1999. It is stated that the order of termination has been passed without causing inquiry by applying the procedure given under the Rules of 1999. It is despite the fact that all the appellants were appointed under the Rules of 1973 and were permanent employees. Few of them were given promotion. The judgments to support the argument have also been referred. The argument in reference to Rules of 1999 has been raised without realising the foundation for passing the order of termination. It is despite the fact that all the appellants were appointed under the Rules of 1973 and were permanent employees. Few of them were given promotion. The judgments to support the argument have also been referred. The argument in reference to Rules of 1999 has been raised without realising the foundation for passing the order of termination. The termination order is in reference to the appointments based on the forged and tampered mark-sheets. If appointment is sought based on the forged or tampered documents, then remains void and in those circumstances, the procedure given under the U.P. Government Servant (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1999 is not required to be applied. The main thrust of argument of the counsel for the appellants is without taking note of the aforesaid aspect. They have relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Mahipal Singh Tomar Vs. State of U.P., 2013 (16) SCC 771 . A perusal of the judgment shows altogether on different facts. Para 13 and 14 of the said judgment has been relied by the learned counsel for the appellants without taking note of the facts of that case. In the instant case, the appellants were served with the show cause notice and it is after considering their reply, if submitted, the order of termination was passed. It is in reference to the forged or tampered B.Ed. degree. The other judgment referred by the learned counsel for the appellants is in the case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2006 (11) SCC 356 . In the said case, the entire selection process was cancelled said to be vitiated by corruption. The Court found that the evidence need to be adduced before the Court to prove that selection was tainted due to mass cheating. The case in hand is having distinguishable facts inasmuch as before passing the order, the respondents issued show cause notice on the petitioners/appellants and thereupon the order was passed. Sufficient material has been produced before the Court to show that appointment was secured based on forged and tampered mark-sheets, thus it was void. The judgment aforesaid provide no assistance to the appellants on the facts of this case. In fact, procedure given under the Rules of 1999 is to be applied if the appointment is not based on forged or tampered documents. The judgment aforesaid provide no assistance to the appellants on the facts of this case. In fact, procedure given under the Rules of 1999 is to be applied if the appointment is not based on forged or tampered documents. As against the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State has cited judgments directly applicable to the facts of the case. A reference of the judgment in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Raghuwar Pal Singh, (2018) 15 SCC 463 for it would be relevant. In the said case, the order of termination was passed without an opportunity of hearing. The Apex Court refused to cause interference in the order and thereby the judgment of the High Court was set aside by restoring the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal holding termination to be legal. Para 19 and 20 of the said judgment are quoted herein for ready reference-: “19. We shall now consider the efficacy of the reason so recorded in the office order. The recruitment procedure in relation to the post of Veterinary Compounder is governed by the statutory rules titled, Central Cattle Breeding Farms (Class III and Class IV posts) Recruitment Rules, 1969, as amended from time to time and including the executive instructions issued in that behalf. As per the stated dispensation for such recruitment, the appointment letter could be issued only by an authorised officer and after grant of approval by the competent authority. Nowhere in the Original Application filed by the respondent, it has been asserted that such prior approval is not the quintessence for issuing a letter of appointment. 20. For taking this contention forward, we may assume, for the time being, that the then Director Incharge H.S. Rathore, Agriculture Officer had the authority to issue a letter of appointment. Nevertheless, he could do so only upon obtaining prior written approval of the competent authority. No case has been made out in the Original Application that due approval was granted by the competent authority before issue of the letter of appointment to the respondent. Thus, it is indisputable that no prior approval of the competent authority was given for the appointment of the respondent. In such a case, the next logical issue that arises for consideration is: whether the appointment letter issued to the respondent, would be a case of nullity or a mere irregularity? Thus, it is indisputable that no prior approval of the competent authority was given for the appointment of the respondent. In such a case, the next logical issue that arises for consideration is: whether the appointment letter issued to the respondent, would be a case of nullity or a mere irregularity? If it is a case of nullity, affording opportunity to the incumbent would be a mere formality and non grant of opportunity may not vitiate the final decision of termination of his services. The Tribunal has rightly held that in absence of prior approval of the competent authority, the Director Incharge could not have hastened issuance of the appointment letter. The act of commission and omission of the then Director Incharge would, therefore, suffer from the vice of lack of authority and nullity in law.” Same view was taken by the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad, (2019) 13 SCC 250 . In the aforesaid case, the regularisation sought by the petitioner was not permitted as claim was based on forged appointment letters. The termination order was thus not interfered. Para 16 of the said judgment is quoted herein-: “16. In the instant cases the writ petitioners have filed the petitions before the High Court with a specific prayer to regularize their service and to set aside the order of termination of their services. They have also challenged the report submitted by the State Committee. The real controversy is whether the writ petitioners were legally and validly appointed. The finding of the State Committee is that many writ petitioners had secured appointment by producing fake or forged appointment letter or had been inducted in Government service surreptitiously by concerned Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer by issuing a posting order. The writ petitioners are the beneficiaries of illegal orders made by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer. They were given notice to establish the genuineness of their appointment and to show cause. None of them could establish the genuineness or legality of their appointment before the State Committee. The State Committee on appreciation of the materials on record has opined that their appointment was illegal and void ab initio. We do not find any ground to disagree with the finding of the State Committee. None of them could establish the genuineness or legality of their appointment before the State Committee. The State Committee on appreciation of the materials on record has opined that their appointment was illegal and void ab initio. We do not find any ground to disagree with the finding of the State Committee. In the circumstances, the question of regularisation of their services by invoking para 53 of the judgment in Umadevi (supra) does not arise. Since the appointment of the petitioners is ab initio void, they cannot be said to be the civil servants of the State. Therefore, holding disciplinary proceedings envisaged by 24 Article 311 of the Constitution or under any other disciplinary rules shall not arise.” The same view was taken by the Apex Court in the case of Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and another Vs. Karamjit Singh, AIR 2019 SC 1913 ; (2019) 16 SCC 782 . The argument therein was in reference to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The argument was not accepted by the Apex Court finding appointment to be illegal. The regularization sought by misrepresentation of fact. The judgment relied by the High Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad, AIR 1944 SC 1074 was not approved. Para 6, 6.1, 6.2 and 7 are quoted herein-: “6. In the present case, the Single Judge had held that “rightly or wrongly”, the Respondent had obtained regularization, and was therefore entitled to a disciplinary enquiry. The Division Bench affirmed the Judgment of the Single Judge. 6.1. The High Court however failed to appreciate that the decision in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra) is applicable to “employees” of Government Departments. Since the very appointment of the Respondent on regular basis was illegal, he could not be treated as an “employee” of the Appellant – Authority. In Rupa Rani Rakshit & Ors. v. Jharkhand Gramin Bank & Ors., this Court held that service rendered in pursuance of an illegal appointment or promotion cannot be equated to service rendered in pursuance of a valid and lawful appointment or promotion. 6.2. The illegality of such an appointment goes to the root of the Respondent’s absorption as a regular employee. The Respondent could not be considered to be an “employee”, and would not be entitled to any benefits under the Regulations applicable to employees of the Appellant – Authority. 6.2. The illegality of such an appointment goes to the root of the Respondent’s absorption as a regular employee. The Respondent could not be considered to be an “employee”, and would not be entitled to any benefits under the Regulations applicable to employees of the Appellant – Authority. Therefore, the High Court erroneously placed reliance on the decision in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra), which would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. The question of holding disciplinary proceedings as envisaged under Article 311 of the Constitution, or under any other disciplinary rules did not arise in the present case since the Respondent was admittedly not an “employee” of the Appellant – Authority, and did not hold a civil post under the State Government. He was merely a daily wager on the muster rolls of the Appellant – Authority.” The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nidhi Kaim and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2017) 4 SCC 1 is also relevant. The medical examination was cancelled when it was found to be based on cheating, unfair means and leakage of question paper. It was held that “fraud unravels everything”. The another judgment of the Apex Court relied by the learned counsel for respondents is in the case of Bank of India and another Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar and others, (2005) 7 SCC 690 . The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and others, (2004) 2 SCC 105 was cited in reference to Article 311 which was not held to be applicable in case appointment is procured based on false caste certificate. Such an appointment was not held to be an appointment in the eyes of law. The dismissal of person from service, thus, was not to attract Article 311 so as the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The judgment aforesaid answers the question raised by the appellants in regard to the application of Rules of 1999 for passing the order of termination. The observance of the Rules of 1999 and Article 311 of the Constitution of India is not warranted in the cases where appointment was taken by fraudulent means. The judgment aforesaid answers the question raised by the appellants in regard to the application of Rules of 1999 for passing the order of termination. The observance of the Rules of 1999 and Article 311 of the Constitution of India is not warranted in the cases where appointment was taken by fraudulent means. Para 15 of the said judgment is quoted herein for ready reference-: “This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the service on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. When it was found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away. His appointment was no appointment in the eye of law. He cannot claim a right to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by playing a fraud and producing a false caste certificate. Unless the appellant can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointment he cannot claim the constitutional guarantee given under the Article 311 of the Constitution. As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate he cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the appellant got the appointment on the basis of false caste certificate has become final. The position, therefore, is that the appellant has usurped the post which should have gone to a member of the Scheduled Caste. In view of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee and upheld upto this Court he has disqualified himself to hold the post. The appointment was void from its inception. It cannot be said that the said void appointment would enable the appellant to claim that he was holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. As appellant had obtained the appointment by playing a fraud he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud in entering the service and claim that he was holder of the post entitled to be dealt with in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or the Rules framed thereunder. As appellant had obtained the appointment by playing a fraud he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud in entering the service and claim that he was holder of the post entitled to be dealt with in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or the Rules framed thereunder. Where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or deceit such an appointment is no appointment in law, in service and in such a situation Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all.” The same view has been taken by the Patna High Court in the case of Rita Misra and others Vs. Director, Primary Education, Bihar, AIR 1988 (Patna) 26 which is approved by the Apex Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha (supra). In view of the judgments referred to above, we find no substance in the first argument raised by the learned counsel for appellants. The procedure given under the Rule of 1999 was not required to be applied for an order of termination in reference to fake or tampered mark-sheets and degrees. The other issue raised by counsel for the appellants is about the delay in initiation of action. It is stated that appellants are serving with the respondents (Basic Education) for the last 10 to 15 years. Their services have been terminated ignoring the aforesaid. The issue of delay in passing the order of termination is of no substance. It is not only for the reason that the fraudulent affairs of the University came into notice to the High Court when the writ petition was filed by Sunil Kumar (supra) in the year 2013. The efface of the University in regard to B.Ed. Examination 2005 was investigated by the S.I.T. on the direction of the Court. It is on collection of material, the fact about issuance of fake mark-sheets apart from tampered came in notice of the State. The action was immediately initiated thereupon not only by the State but the University. The issue of delay has otherwise been considered by the Apex Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and others, (2004) 2 SCC 105 therein the action was taken after 27 years. The Apex Court refused to accept the plea in the light of the fact that the appointments secured based on fraud is void. The issue of delay has otherwise been considered by the Apex Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and others, (2004) 2 SCC 105 therein the action was taken after 27 years. The Apex Court refused to accept the plea in the light of the fact that the appointments secured based on fraud is void. The writ petition therein was filed by the son to secure the pensionary benefits. The long service was not accepted as a ground to secure the pensionary benefits. Para 15 and 19 of the said judgment are quoted herein for ready reference-: “15. This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the service on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. When it was found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away. His appointment was no appointment in the eyes of law. He cannot claim a right to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by playing a fraud and producing a false caste certificate. Unless the appellant can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointment he cannot claim the constitutional guarantee given under the Article 311 of the Constitution. As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate he cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the appellant got the appointment on the basis of false caste certificate has become final. The position, therefore, is that the appellant has usurped the post which should have gone to a member of the Scheduled Caste. In view of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee and upheld upto this Court he has disqualified himself to hold the post. Appointment was void from its inception. It cannot be said that the said void appointment would enable the appellant to claim that he was holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Appointment was void from its inception. It cannot be said that the said void appointment would enable the appellant to claim that he was holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. As appellant had obtained the appointment by playing a fraud he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud in entering the service and claim that he was holder of the post entitled to be dealt with in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or the Rules framed thereunder. Where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or deceit such an appointment is no appointment in law, in service and in such a situation Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all. 19. It was then contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant that since the appellant has rendered about 27 years of service the order of dismissal be substituted by an order of compulsory retirement or removal from service to protect the pensionary benefits of the appellant. We do not find any substance in this submission, as well. The rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. Appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a reserved candidate by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a fraud. His appointment to the post was void and non est in the eyes of law. The right to salary or pension after retirement flow from a valid and legal appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits cannot be given in a case where the appointment was found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on false caste certificate. A person who entered the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtained appointment for the post meant for Scheduled Caste thus depriving the genuine Scheduled Caste of appointment to that post does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the Court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor the Court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the Court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor the Court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of false caste certificate by playing a fraud. No sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the view that equity or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an individual acquired a status by practising fraud.” The Apex Court refused to grant relief on compassion or equity even though the deceased had rendered 27 years of service. The prayer to substitute the order of dismissal by compulsory retirement or removal to protect pensionary benefits was not accepted therein. In view of the above, we do not find that mere rendering the service for more than 10 years can be a ground to set aside the order of termination. If the prayer is accepted, then it would mean endorsement of fake or tampered mark-sheets. The next question advanced by counsel for the appellants is in reference to an interim order passed by the Court in the case of Smt. Suryavati and 150 others (supra) on the show cause notice issued by the State Government. A perusal of the interim order goes against the appellants in view of the fact that learned Single Judge while protecting the salary of the appellants, allowed the respondents to proceed in the matter as per Rules and accordingly there was no restrain to proceed in the matter for passing the order of termination or cancellation of the order of appointment. If there would have been disobedience of the Court’s order in the said writ petitions, the appellants could have moved for contempt. The fact is that no contempt petition was preferred. Thus, challenge to the order of termination in reference to the interim order passed by the Court in the case of Suryavati and 152 others Vs. State of U.P. and 24 others, Writ A No. 56739 of 2017 remains of no consequence. The fact is that no contempt petition was preferred. Thus, challenge to the order of termination in reference to the interim order passed by the Court in the case of Suryavati and 152 others Vs. State of U.P. and 24 others, Writ A No. 56739 of 2017 remains of no consequence. For ready reference, the operative portion of the order dated 29.11.2017 in the case of Suryavati and 152 others (supra) is quoted herein-: “Reliance has been placed on the decisions rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 399 (MB) of 2007 (Shri Puran Prasad Gupta Memorial Degree College Versus State of U.P. and others) decided on 6 April 2007 and in Service Single No. 3335 of 2001 (Akhtyar Ahmad Versus State of U.P. and others) decided on 7 August 2015. Submission requires consideration. Till the next date of listing, it will be open for the respondents to initiate proceedings against the petitioners for removal/termination in accordance with the Rules. Respondents, however, in the mean time are restrained from interfering in the functioning of the petitioners, they shall be entitled to their salary as and when due which shall abide by the outcome of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.” It is not correct to state that respondents passed order of termination in defiance of the order quoted above. There was no restrain in passing the order of termination. It is also urged by the learned counsel for appellants that the report of S.I.T. was made basis for passing the order of termination whereas report is not final in nature rather would be subject matter of trial in criminal case. The fact aforesaid has been clarified by the learned Additional Advocate General for the State. The sequence of the events in reference to the earlier litigation has been given in the opening paras. It started with a writ petition filed by Sunil Kumar (supra). The S.I.T. was constituted by the State Government pursuant to the direction of this Court. The S.I.T. collected material in the course of inquiry/investigation. A report was then submitted. The basis for taking action is the material collected by the S.I.T. and not the report alone. It is thus incorrect to state that no material was available with the respondents to proceed in the matter. The S.I.T. collected material in the course of inquiry/investigation. A report was then submitted. The basis for taking action is the material collected by the S.I.T. and not the report alone. It is thus incorrect to state that no material was available with the respondents to proceed in the matter. The fact about manipulation came in the notice of the High Court on filing of a writ petition by Sunil Kumar (supra), when he was given two mark-sheets of B.Ed. Examination, 2005. A direction and on the production of affidavit by the Vice Chancellor, this Court observed about manufacturing of tabulation sheets, thus, directed the State Government to refer the matter to CBCID. The S.I.T. was constituted thereupon. During the course of investigation, the marks foil were recovered to assess how many marks were given by the examiner to each of the candidates apart from the fact as to how many candidates appeared in the B.Ed. Examination 2005. The details of it has been given by the learned Single Judge. The result of 12472 students was declared whereas admission and appearance of the students in the examination was less than to it. The figure of students appeared in the examination revealed from the record. It is not only in reference to the intake capacity of each institution approved by the N.C.T. but subsequent judgment of Bench at Lucknow in the case of Sri Puram Prasad Gupta Memorial Degree College (supra). Total 8899 students appeared in the examination out of which 869 were those who appeared pursuant to the direction of the Bench at Lucknow. The result of the examination thereupon was declared for 8930 students. The declaration of excess result of 31 students was again pursuant to the direction of the Bench at Lucknow. As against it, the mark-sheets were issued in favour of 12472 students. The fact aforesaid could not be disputed even by the counsel for the appellants other than to emphasize that S.I.T. did not take care of the judgment of the Bench at Lucknow in the case of Sri Puram Prasad Gupta Memorial Degree College (supra). The argument aforesaid has been raised without realising that the S.I.T. had taken figure of additional 869 students in excess to the admission otherwise given by the colleges. It was pursuant to the interim order and judgment of Bench at Lucknow. The argument aforesaid has been raised without realising that the S.I.T. had taken figure of additional 869 students in excess to the admission otherwise given by the colleges. It was pursuant to the interim order and judgment of Bench at Lucknow. It was admitted by the counsel for the appellants that fraudulent mark-sheets have been issued but how it can be said to be to the appellants and not to the others. The argument aforesaid is relevant because nobody could dispute about declaration of result of the students in excess to admission as well as the appearance in the examination. It is therefore only the tabulation sheet/cross list produced by the University was not containing signatures of any authorized officer/person and additional pages were in different font. The question remains as to how the appellants alone can be said to have obtained fake mark-sheets out of those whose name appeared in tabulation sheet in excess to the students appeared in the examination. The determination of the aforesaid issue is not difficult in view of the fact that even while filing the writ petitions to question the order of termination, the appellants did not submit relevant documents to show their admission in any of the colleges with payment of fee apart from all other material to prove relevant facts as otherwise submitted by few appellants now namely-: (i) Surendra Kumar S/o Sri Mauji Lal (ii) Rajiv Singh Yadav S/o Sri Ram Ladait Yadav (iii) Sudeep Kumar S/o Sri Ajay Pal Singh (iv) Smt. Reeta Gautam D/o Sri Ram Gautam (v) Reeta Yadav D/o Sri Janki Lal Yadav (vi) Anuradha D/o Sri Rajendra Singh (vii) Rekha Lavania D/o Sri Vijendra Singh The documents aforesaid were submitted when Court asked the appellants to prove their case but other than few, none else could submit the documents rather if the documents in reference to Sarvesh Kumar Chaturvedi and Rajesh Kumar Chaturvedi S/o Sri Shankar Lal Chaturvedi, submitted by the Senior Counsel Sri Ashok Khare are perused, they are not of the nature submitted by other appellants named above. No material was submitted by the petitioners along with the writ petition to prove their admission in the college and appearance in the B.Ed. Examination, 2005. The documents submitted along with the writ petition were largely the mark-sheets and the degrees which have been considered to be fake. No material was submitted by the petitioners along with the writ petition to prove their admission in the college and appearance in the B.Ed. Examination, 2005. The documents submitted along with the writ petition were largely the mark-sheets and the degrees which have been considered to be fake. The majority of mark-sheets are not containing even the enrollment number. No reason has been given as to why other than 18 candidates, which includes candidates named above, did not file reply to the notice given by the University along with complete material if they were genuine candidates. The material was not submitted even in response to the notice given by the Basic Education Officer. It is otherwise a fact that name of the appellants did not find place in the marks foil. The marks foil so recovered by the S.I.T. were called in the Court during the course of hearing even for perusal of counsel for the appellants. It was when they had shown their doubt about availability of the marks foil. The doubt was mainly raised by those counsel who have appeared for the students having the tampered mark-sheets. The original marks foil is material to show that appellants did not appear in the examination, thus are having fake mark-sheets. The marks foil was seen by the counsel for the appellants also. It is thus not correct to state that S.I.T. report alone was basis for passing termination order rather it is even the material collected during the course of investigation. There was no reason for the appellants not to produce relevant material while filing the writ petition to prove themselves to be genuine students. Learned counsel for appellants further stated that the basis to dismiss the writ petitions by the learned Single Judge is the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the University to cancel the degrees. It is without a liberty to challenge the order. It is a fact that during the pendency of the writ petition, the University cancelled the degrees issued in favour of 2823 students who failed to submit reply along with material to prove their appearance in the examination after admission in any of the colleges. The impugned judgment however shows detail arguments of the appellants against the order dated 07.02.2020 and discussion of each issue thereupon. The impugned judgment however shows detail arguments of the appellants against the order dated 07.02.2020 and discussion of each issue thereupon. It is thus not correct to state that learned Single Judge did not allow challenge or arguments against the order dated 07.02.2020. Those candidates have challenged the order of termination without placing material to show their admission and appearance in the B.Ed. Examination 2005. The impugned judgment shows extensive arguments of the counsel for the appellants against the order dated 07.02.2020 without a formal challenge. The learned Single Judge has discussed all the arguments while passing the judgment. The order dated 07.02.2020 is not based on the S.I.T. report alone. The University called for the information in its show cause notice. 2823 students failed to submit reply to notice and even failed to place any material along with the writ petitions to prove their admission in the college apart from appearance in the examination. The order dated 07.02.2020 is not based on the S.I.T. report alone. The University called for the information in its show cause notice. 2823 students failed to submit reply to notice and even failed to place any material along with the writ petitions to prove their admission in the college apart from appearance in the examination. The questionnaire given by the University through its notice is as under-: HINDI TABLE 1 Nk=@Nk=k dk uke 2 Nk=@Nk=k dk LFkkbZ@i=O;ogkj dk irk] eks0 uacj ,oa vk/kkj dkMZ uacj% 3 Nk=@Nk=k ds firk dk uke% 4 izos’k ijh{kk dk vuqdzekad% 5 ftl egkfo|ky; esa izos’k fy;k mldk uke 6 izos’k dkmUlfyax vFkok izca/kdh; dksVs esa gqvk ¼LiLV mYys[k djsa½ 7 dkmUlfyax la[;k@izca/kdh; dksVs esa izos’k lwph esa LFkku ¼dkmUlfyax i= layXu djsa½ 8 egkfo|ky; esa izos’k ds le; izos’k ’kqYd MªkV@udn tek djkus dk fooj.k MªkV@jlhn la[;k -------------------@/kujkf’k---------- fnukad ¼izek.k lfgr½ 9 egkfo|ky; esa LdkWyjf’ki izkIr dh n’kk esa fooj.kA MªkV@jlhn la[;k -------------------@/kujkf’k---------- fnukad ¼izek.k lfgr½ 10 ukekadu la[;k 11 eq[; ijh{kk ch0,M0 05 dk vuqdzekad 12 ch0,M0 o"kZ 2005 eq[; ijh{kk ds ijh{kk dsUnz dk uke 13 ch0,M0 o"kZ 2005 ijh{kk esa cSBus dk izos’k i= dh Nk;kizfr 14 ch0,M0 o"kZ 2005 dh ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus ds ckn vadrkfydk Lo;a izekf.kr dj layXu djsaA 15 ;fn vLFkkbZ izek.k i= fo’ofo|ky; }kjk fuxZr fd;k x;k gks rks izek.k i=ksa dh la[;k leLr vLFkkbZ izek.ki=ksa dh Nk;k izfr layXu djsaA 16 ewy mikf/k dk fooj.k dzekad la[;k 17 vU; dksbZ fooj.k@lwpuk ^^uksV&% mijksDr ls lacaf/kr lHkh vfHkys[kksa dh Loizekf.kr izfr;ka@izek.kd vfuok;Z #i ls layXu djsaA layXuksa dh la[;k vadksa esa ------------------------------- ¼’kCnksa esa½------------------------ lacaf/kr egkfo|ky; ds izkpk;Z }kjk vxzlkj.k&% izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd Jh@Jherh@dqekjh--------------------- iq=@iq=h--------------------- fuoklh----------------------------- us egkfo|ky; esa o"kZ 2004&05 dkmUlfyax esustesaV ------------------------ ds varxZr fof/k lEer izosf’kr Nk=@Nk=k Fks@FkhA Jh --------------------- dks tks vadrkfydk fo’ofo|ky; }kjk tkjh dh x;h Fkh mlds -------- vad izkIr gq;s Fks rFkk lS)kfUrd esa ------------- Js.kh rFkk izk;ksfxd esa --------------- Js.kh FkkA Nk=@Nk=k ds gLrk{kj----------------- izkpk;Z fnukad ----------------------- gLrk{kj ,oa eqgj^^ No explanation has been given for non-submission of information sought by the University along with material, if candidates appeared in the B.Ed. Examination, 2005. The information sought in the questionnaire was not such which would not have been available if a candidate took admission in the college and appeared in the examination. Examination, 2005. The information sought in the questionnaire was not such which would not have been available if a candidate took admission in the college and appeared in the examination. It is also urged that appellants had appeared in the selection test and stood in the merit, thus could not have been terminated. Mere appearance in the selection test for the post of Assistant Teacher and qualifying it would not make the candidates eligible for the post having fake or tampered mark-sheets. In absence of valid B.Ed. degrees, they were not eligible for appointment as B.Ed. course is an essential qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. It is at this stage we are again considering the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the University as few appellants have challenged the order aforesaid in these appeals. The order dated 07.02.2020 was passed by the University after issuance of show cause notice. It was not interfered by this Court in the case of Tilak Singh (supra). The notice was published in the news papers where a questionnaire was given to each of the candidates to answer it and submit reply along with supporting material. 2823 candidates did not submit any reply to the notice and accordingly they were declared to be holder of fake mark-sheets. The degrees as well as mark sheets were thus cancelled. The order dated 07.02.2020 has been questioned by the appellants without supplying any material even along with the appeal other than seven candidates named in the earlier paragraph. It is despite an opportunity by the University and even by the State. It is more so when name of such students came during the course of investigation as no record for their appearance in examination was found. The marks foil recovered in the investigation were not containing their names. The cross list/tabulation sheet was observed to be manufactured documents by this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar (supra) as it was not containing signature of any authorized officer/person and it was having different font. In fact there were addition of pages in the tabulation sheet and thereby it was containing the result over and above those appeared in the examination. The University conducted the inquiry and it is on the recommendation of the Committee that the order dated 07.02.2020 was passed. In fact there were addition of pages in the tabulation sheet and thereby it was containing the result over and above those appeared in the examination. The University conducted the inquiry and it is on the recommendation of the Committee that the order dated 07.02.2020 was passed. Why the reply to questionnaire was not given by the appellants could not be explained if they are genuine students. It was not submitted even while filing the writ petition. It goes against the appellants whose degrees have been cancelled holding it to be fake. In view of the above, we do not find any substance in the arguments for challenge to the order dated 07.02.2020. We are alive of the situation that few writ petitions have been separately instituted to question the order dated 07.02.2020 and are pending but it does not affect the right of others to challenge it in the appeal. The order dated 02.07.2020 came on record during the pendency of the writ petition and extensive arguments were made even before the learned Single Judge, who recorded finding on each argument. No error in the finding has been shown other than to state that appellants were not permitted to challenge the order dated 07.02.2020 though manifold arguments against the said order were made before the learned Single Judge. The argument of the appellants that learned Single Judge did not give opportunity to question the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the University, thus cannot be accepted. The opportunity for it has otherwise been given by this Court in the appeal on the request of counsel for the appellants and otherwise arguments were even raised before the learned Single Judge also who has recorded its finding on each argument and has not been questioned. This virtually nullifies the argument of learned counsel for appellants to question the judgment in reference to the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the University. The University has already taken decision in regard to other 814 students also which includes 18 those students who filed detailed reply and submitted material to support it. The copy of the order dated 29.07.2020 in reference to 814 students was placed on record by Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate along with written arguments. The direction of the learned Single Judge in regard to 814 candidates has been thus complied. The copy of the order dated 29.07.2020 in reference to 814 students was placed on record by Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate along with written arguments. The direction of the learned Single Judge in regard to 814 candidates has been thus complied. They did not submit material along with the writ petition or the appeal for challenge to the order of termination other than few. It was submitted only by seven candidates pursuant to the direction in these appeals to show their admission in the college and appearance in the examination. The documents should have been filed otherwise for scrutiny by the State. The order dated 29.07.2020 has been kept in abeyance by the University pursuant to the interim order in these appeals. The interim orders are vacated; accordingly order would be revived. The other argument of learned counsel for appellants is that the S.I.T. report is not final because a challenge to it has been made in the case of Sunil Kumar converted into a P.I.L. The argument aforesaid is of no relevance in view of the fact that this Court has passed a detailed judgment holding action of the respondents to be independent to the report. The material collected during the course of investigation has been used. There is no contest and denial regarding issuance of fake marksheets though it has been qualified as to how fake candidates can be appellants alone and not others. The argument aforesaid has already been dealt with by this Court. The S.I.T. report alone was not taken as a piece of evidence rather the material recovered by the S.I.T. is also basis for passing the order. Marks foil were otherwise perused by the counsel for the appellants on their request, as was called by this Court from the respondents. The name of fake candidates does not exist in the marks foil. In the majority of mark-sheets submitted by them does not even contain enrollment number. In view of the above, the appellants declared to be fake students should have produced material in their defence. The impugned judgment of learned Single Judge is not otherwise based on the judgment of this Court in the case of Tilak Singh (supra). In the majority of mark-sheets submitted by them does not even contain enrollment number. In view of the above, the appellants declared to be fake students should have produced material in their defence. The impugned judgment of learned Single Judge is not otherwise based on the judgment of this Court in the case of Tilak Singh (supra). It is however a fact that issue about the competence of the officer/council, apart from other issues, adjudicated therein and attained finality in absence of further challenge, thus relied upon by the learned Single Judge. The issues settled therein are not open for challenge in these cases. The learned Single Judge was aware of the fact that judgment aforesaid was against the show cause notice. The argument has also been made by the counsel for the appellants that result of B.Ed. Examination 2005 was declared on two occasions, one prior to the judgment in the case of Shri Puran Prasad Gupta Memorial Degree College (supra) dated 06.04.2007 and another subsequent to it. The S.I.T. has not taken note of the aforesaid. The argument aforesaid has been raised without taking into consideration that as against 82 institutions, how many students could have been admitted pursuant to the intake capacity given by the N.C.T. to those institutions with actual figure of students. The material recovered by the S.I.T. has made the picture clear. The figure of total students was taken with addition to the students pursuant to the judgment of Bench at Lucknow in the case of Sri Puram Prasad Gupta Memorial Degree College (supra). Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to refer the interim order passed in the said case from time to time while challenging number of the students taken by the S.I.T. and even while doing so, they could not come out with a figure as to how many students appeared pursuant to the judgment of Bench at Lucknow. In fact the effort of the appellants is only to confuse the Court. The learned Additional Advocate General appeared for the State clarified the picture after referring to the material collected by the S.I.T. as to how many students appeared in the examination. An argument has been raised even in reference to the marks foil. It contains marks of only two papers, thus could not have been relied by the S.I.T. and this Court. An argument has been raised even in reference to the marks foil. It contains marks of only two papers, thus could not have been relied by the S.I.T. and this Court. The marks foil recovered during the course of investigation were called for perusal of the Court as well as counsel for the appellants. It is true that marks foil of only two papers have been recovered but therein also marks appeared in the mark-sheets were found different than what has been recorded in the marks foil, prepared based on the marks allotted by the examiner. They were sufficient to prove tampering of mark sheets and even the number of the students appeared in the examination. At this stage, another argument was raised that the name of those appeared in the marks foil is to be treated as genuine candidates. The argument for it was raised by the counsel appearing for the candidates having tampered mark-sheets. The argument aforesaid is accepted for tampered mark-sheets. The name of 2823+814 students does not exist in the marks foil which was even examined by the Court on random basis in the presence of counsel for the appellants. Two candidates out of 814 students appeared as ex-students, thus, they are excluded from the list of fake students. They are Km. Anita Maurya D/o Bhola Singh and Vijay Singh S/o Hari Singh. The case of seven candidates named in earlier paras needs to be considered separately for which necessary direction would be passed. The counsel were invited to refer the name of any of the candidates whose mark-sheets/degree was declared to be fake. The name given by the counsel for the appellants were not found in the marks foil and it was perused not only for one institution but more than one on random basis. It is also that other than seven out of 814 students/candidates failed to produce any material to prove their appearance in the examination. In view of the above, their termination order are not interfered. The action of the State for 814 candidates is taken to be independent to the action of University. The learned Single Judge found that even mark-sheets produced by them do not contain enrollment number. In view of the above, their termination order are not interfered. The action of the State for 814 candidates is taken to be independent to the action of University. The learned Single Judge found that even mark-sheets produced by them do not contain enrollment number. In view of the above, we do not find substance in any of the arguments raised on behalf of appellants/students whose mark-sheets/degrees were found to be fake and accordingly we do not find any reason to cause interference in the order of termination. The issue now remains about the tampered mark-sheets. Learned counsel for appellants submits that University has yet to undertake exercise in reference to the tampered mark-sheets. Thus, the order of the learned Single Judge may be interfered. Whatever decision is taken by the University after applying the procedure given under Section 67 of the Act of 1973, the aforesaid would be acceptable to the appellants. Thus, their order of termination may be made subject to final outcome of the exercise yet to be taken by the University for tampered mark-sheets. The counsel for University has raised no objection. The learned counsel for the State however made a contest. It is submitted that marks foil are sufficient to show tampering of mark-sheets. It is however submitted that if any direction in reference to the request of the appellants is given, they should not be reinstated at this stage but their termination be made subject to final outcome of the exercise to be undertaken by the University. In that case, issue regarding lessor marks in the tampered marksheets in few cases would also be considered by the University though so far as the State is concerned, they still support their the order of termination/cancellation of appointments as it is based on the material collected by the S.I.T. The marks folio show different marks than appeared in the mark-sheets. The tabulation sheets was also showing marks at variance to marks folio. In view of the above, the respondent-State prayed to maintain order for termination of those involved in the tampering of mark-sheets. According to them, the fact about tampering gets established as one Sunil Kumar was issued two different mark-sheets containing different marks. It happened due to tampering of marks. The said Sunil Kumar then preferred the writ petition to challenge the issuance of two mark-sheets showing different marks. According to them, the fact about tampering gets established as one Sunil Kumar was issued two different mark-sheets containing different marks. It happened due to tampering of marks. The said Sunil Kumar then preferred the writ petition to challenge the issuance of two mark-sheets showing different marks. It is thereupon only the manipulation and malpractices played by the University came in the notice of the High Court. It is however admitted that the direction of the learned Single Judge in regards to tampered mark-sheets has not been challenged by the State. In view of the above and as we find no error in the judgment to direct the University to proceed in the matter as per Section 67 of the Act of 1977 and making termination order subject to the outcome of the aforesaid, we accept the prayer of the appellants and for that to modify the direction only in regards to payment of salary of the intervening period. In view of the above, we would pass appropriate order in the concluding paragraph for the tampering of mark-sheets. No arguments in reference to the candidates given mark-sheets on one roll number has been made rather the appeal was filed by only those candidates who have been terminated holding their mark-sheets to be fake or tampered. Accordingly, limited to that extent, the judgment is rendered. In the light of the discussion made above, we dispose of all these appeals with following directions substituting the judgment of learned Single Judge-: (1) No interference is made in the order of termination/cancellation of appointment of those who obtained service based on fake mark-sheets other than those whose writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The direction aforesaid would apply not only to 2823 candidates whose mark-sheets/degrees were cancelled by the University by order dated 07.02.2020 but remaining 814 candidates also other than those excluded by the learned Single Judge and one Km. Anita Maurya D/o Bhola Singh of T.R.K. College, Aligarh and Vijay Singh S/o Hari Singh of K.R.T.T. College, Mathura. This direction would further exclude seven other candidates, viz. Anita Maurya D/o Bhola Singh of T.R.K. College, Aligarh and Vijay Singh S/o Hari Singh of K.R.T.T. College, Mathura. This direction would further exclude seven other candidates, viz. (i) Surendra Kumar S/o Sri Mauji Lal; (ii) Rajiv Singh Yadav S/o Sri Ram Ladait Yadav; (iii) Sudeep Kumar S/o Sri Ajay Pal Singh; (iv) Smt. Reeta Gautam D/o Sri Ram Gautam; (v) Reeta Yadav D/o Sri Janki Lal Yadav; (vi) Anuradha D/o Sri Rajendra Singh; (vii) Rekha Lavania D/o Sri Vijendra Singh. The respondent-State and University are directed to reconsider the case of above named seven candidates in the light of the documents submitted by them pursuant to the liberty given by this Court in these appeals. It would be in coordination. Necessary exercise in regard to those candidates would made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If their admission in the college coupled with appearance in the examination is found proved, then the termination order would be recalled in reference to them. For a period of one month, those candidates would continue in service subject to outcome of the direction given above. List of 812 candidates out of 814 is enclosed as Schedule-I. Their order of termination of 812 candidates has been examined independently by the Court. It was not otherwise made dependent by the State to the order to be passed by the University for 814 candidates. (2) So far as the challenge to the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the University is concerned, no interference therein is made. Extensive arguments against the said order were made even before the learned Single Judge without a formal challenge to it but arguments so made were then dealt with by the learned Single Judge. The finding recorded therein does not suffer from error and even no argument to challenge the finding has been made other than to state that no opportunity was given to challenge the order dated 07.02.2020 ignoring that extensive arguments were made by the learned counsel. The finding in regard to it has been recorded by this Court also. (3) The judgment of learned Single Judge is interfered in regard to the direction to the concerned District Basic Education Officer to effect the recovery of benefits obtained pursuant to the interim order of the Court. The finding in regard to it has been recorded by this Court also. (3) The judgment of learned Single Judge is interfered in regard to the direction to the concerned District Basic Education Officer to effect the recovery of benefits obtained pursuant to the interim order of the Court. The liberty given by the learned Single Judge to the District Basic Education Officer for recovery is set aside. (4) So far as the termination orders in reference to tampered mark-sheets are concerned, as urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, the University is directed to complete the exercise, as directed by the learned Single Judge, after observance of the provisions of law referred in the judgment and otherwise directed by this Court in the case of Tilak Singh (supra). The order in reference to those candidates would be made within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The order of termination/cancellation of appointments would be governed by the outcome of the order passed by the University, as agreed by the learned counsel for the appellants. If the University hold mark-sheets to be genuine instead of tampered of any of the appellants, the order of termination/cancellation of appointments, those would stand set aside. However, if the University records a finding about any of the candidates holding tampered mark-sheets, then the order of termination/cancellation of appointments would have effect but it would be from the date of the order passed by the University and accordingly for a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment by the University, the order of termination/cancellation of appointments of the candidates holding tampered mark-sheets is kept in abeyance. Those candidates would be allowed to work with payment of salary. It is, however, made clear that in case any of the candidate fails to participate in the proceedings initiated by the University or delays it, this order would not be to their benefit and accordingly, the direction herein above would remain operative only for a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the University. On the expiry of the period given above, the order of termination/cancellation of appointments would become effective and thereby the University is directed to complete the exercise within the period given above. On the expiry of the period given above, the order of termination/cancellation of appointments would become effective and thereby the University is directed to complete the exercise within the period given above. In case any candidate fails to cooperate with them, then a separate order for it can be passed but University would not, in any case, delay the process and for that no extension would be given by this Court rather default of the University to comply the direction aforesaid would have consequences of stoppage of salary of those who have to take action and to pass order in pursuance to the direction of this Court. The Vice Chancellor of the University would monitor compliance of this order and in case of delay, he would not be entitle to salary. The University would be at liberty to make inspection of the marks folio lying with the Registrar, High Court or the S.I.T. for the purpose of verification, if so required and accordingly Registrar, High Court as well as S.I.T. is directed to cooperate with the University for it. (5) The list of 2823 students has been enclosed along with the impugned judgment and list of remaining 812 candidates is enclosed as schedule I to this judgment. All the appeals are disposed of with the aforesaid. HINDI TABLE