One set of educational documents, ten or more jobs: that, in several instances, is what the Allahabad High Court was told, and it has now ordered statewide document verification of all basic school teachers in Uttar Pradesh, to be supervised by the Special Task Force.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has ordered a verification of the educational qualifications and appointment papers of teachers in Uttar Pradesh’s basic schools, which teach Classes I to VIII, after hearing that a large number of teachers had allegedly obtained employment on forged documents or by using another person’s documents [Kusumlata v. State of U.P. and Others].
The order was passed by Justice Vinod Diwakar in a writ petition in which the petitioner asks for approval of her appointment as an Assistant Teacher and release of her salary. The next hearing is on November 4, 2026.
The paperwork every teacher must hand in
After a notification is issued from the office of the concerned Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA), teachers get one week to submit legible copies of their appointment letters and educational documents, covering High School, Intermediate, Graduation, B.Ed./B.T.C. (D.El.Ed., B.El.Ed. and similar), and TET/CTET.
Each teacher must also file a notarised affidavit with particulars of specified relatives, serving or retired, who have held office in the Uttar Pradesh Education Department at the level of BSA and above. Spouses, parents, children, in-laws, siblings-in-law and first-degree cousins are covered. A teacher with no such relative must file an undertaking saying so.
BSAs are to instruct school headmasters to ensure compliance and to prepare an Excel sheet showing each teacher’s name, date of appointment, qualifications, the minimum qualification required at that time and the merit scored under the applicable Gazette notification. Documents and data go to the concerned STF Range Office. The Director of Education will supervise the exercise, while the Additional Director General of Police, STF, will supervise verification and investigation. Any “laxity or dereliction of duty”, the Court warned, would be viewed seriously, and officers may be held personally accountable.
What led the Court to order a statewide exercise
The Bench heard that the STF investigation had also found that a large number of teachers in the State had secured jobs through forged documents, and that in several instances ten or more persons had obtained jobs against a single set of educational documents. The Court also drew on an earlier order of a coordinate Bench, which had directed action against teachers appointed through fraud: cancellation of appointments, recovery of salary where permissible, and disciplinary and penal action against officials found to have colluded with, abetted or ignored such appointments.
On teaching quality, the Court said:
“Where the Government is infusing substantial resources – free textbooks, the mid-day meal, uniforms and other provisions – and the condition of the primary schools has still not improved, one of the principal reasons may well be the quality of the teachers, and the fact that teachers in government service are not discharging their duties with the seriousness and sincerity expected of them”
Falling enrolment, and the teachers behind it
Linking fraudulent appointments to the state of primary education, the Court noted that many primary schools have shut because enrolment has dropped:
“That shortfall is not attributable to a want of resources, but to the deteriorating quality of the education imparted and to the inadequate performance of the teachers”
Knowing the subject, it added, is not the only mark of a good teacher; it pointed to pedagogic ability, regular attendance, patience and fairness towards children. The direction is a verification exercise resting on what the State told the Court. It records no finding against any individual teacher.
The petition in which the order came
The petitioner, Kusumlata, asks the Court to direct the District Basic Education Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar, to approve her appointment and release her salary. On her account, she was appointed in Siddharth Nagar district on January 2, 2006 and promoted on July 12, 2010. She was suspended on February 11, 2021 over allegations that she used forged documents to secure the appointment.
Counsel for the State said an inquiry found that she had used forged educational documents belonging to another teacher, Kusumlata Srivastava, who is posted at a school in Gorakhpur district. These are the State’s allegations. They are untested, and in the order as reported the Court has recorded no finding on them.
An order of October 8 directed the petitioner to appear before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Special Task Force (STF), Lucknow, on October 12 and 13 with all her documents and claims, and asked the STF to inquire into their genuineness within one week and report. She did not appear on either date and did not submit her educational qualifications for verification. Her counsel had earlier said she had recently undergone surgery and was on bed rest. No one appeared for her when the matter was taken up again.
Case Title: Kusumlata v. State of U.P. and Others (writ petition)
Bench: Justice Vinod Diwakar, Allahabad High Court
Next hearing: November 4, 2026