Mere Discrepancy in Date of Birth Won’t be ‘Fraud or Wilful Misrepresentation’: Allahabad High Court Quashes Assistant Teacher Dismissal Order

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The Allahabad High Court ruled that minor discrepancies in date of birth across educational records cannot constitute fraud or misrepresentation Justice Manju Rani Chauhan quashed dismissal of assistant teacher and ordered reinstatement noting inconsistencies alone cannot prove wilful fraud.

PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has held that a simple mismatch in the recorded dates of birth across different educational documents of a government employee when there is no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or intentional concealment cannot be treated as “fraud or wilful misrepresentation” for the purpose of terminating service.

Justice Manju Rani Chauhan quashed the dismissal order issued against a government assistant teacher in Mau and directed the State authorities to allow him to resume his duties immediately.

ALSO READ: Aadhaar, Voter ID Not Conclusive Proof of Date of Birth: MP High Court Emphasises Reliability of Service Records

The court noted:

“The inference of fraud, which entails grave civil consequences cannot be drawn on the basis of equivocal circumstances or mere inconsistencies in record, howsoever inconvenient they may appear,”.

Petitioner Vijai Kumar Yadav was appointed as an assistant teacher in a junior basic school in Mau in 2014. In 2018, an RTI application was filed to verify his educational credentials. The information revealed that a 1998 high school record mentioned his date of birth as July 2, 1984, while his Purva Madhyama certificate dated 2001 recorded it as July 7, 1987.

On the basis of this alleged inconsistency, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari in Mau dismissed Yadav from service on June 27, 2019, and ordered the lodging of an FIR against him. Challenging the dismissal, Yadav submitted that the high school certificate was neither relied upon nor produced by him at any stage of the recruitment process. He further argued that it was not used for admission to the BTC Training Course, 2010.

ALSO READ: Supreme Court Overturns Disqualification of Police Constable Candidate Over Minor Date of Birth Error

He also contended that no benefit was ever obtained by him using that certificate, and therefore the dismissal order was unjustified and legally unsustainable.

The court further observed that non-disclosure can amount to misconduct only if it is “purposeful, calculated, and actuated by a discernible intent to deceive”.

In its order dated April 13, the High Court quashed the dismissal order and directed that the petitioner be permitted to resume his duties forthwith.

FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE