Holding

If a particular act is fraudulent, any consequential order to such fraudulent act is non est and void ab initio, making the dismissal of the respondents lawful.

Summary

The respondents were appointed as Assistant Teachers in West Bengal primary schools after obtaining a Primary Teachers' Training Institute (PTI) certificate, which they secured by inflating their marks to gain admission to the training course. Upon discovery of the fraud, the District Primary School Council issued show‑cause notices, gave them an opportunity of hearing, and dismissed them from service. The respondents challenged the dismissal in the Calcutta High Court; the Single Judge dismissed the petitions, but the Division Bench set aside that order in their favor. The Supreme Court examined whether the dismissal was justified despite the respondents having passed the subsequent selection test and whether natural justice was violated. It held that a certificate obtained by fraud is void ab initio, and any consequential order, such as dismissal, is valid; the respondents had been afforded a fair hearing. Consequently, the Court set aside the Division Bench judgment, restored the Single Judge’s order, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether dismissal of teachers who obtained the prerequisite PTI certificate by fraud is justified.
Whether the respondents were denied principles of natural justice in the dismissal process.
Whether a fraudulent act renders subsequent orders void ab initio.

Subjects

service lawdismissalfraudnatural justicevoid ab initioteachersappointmentcertificateshow cause notice

Judgment

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 546
.- \o-

A DISTRICT PRIMARY SCHOOL COUNCIL, WB
v.
tJIRITUNJOY DAS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6007 of 2011)
JULY 27, 2011 •.. •
B
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

Service law - Dismissal from service - Appointment!
c selection of respondents as Assistant teacher in Primary
Schools - Respondents as a pre-requisite had taken
admission in the training course for obtaining Primary
Teachers' Training Institute Certificate to get appointment as '--
~
.(
Assistant Teacher - However, subsequently, the School
D Council found that the admission in the training course was .
obtained by inflating their marks - Respondents dismissed
from service - Writ petitions by the respondents - Dismissed
by the Single Judge of the High Court- However, the Division
Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal - On appeal,
held: If a particular act is fraudulent, any consequential order
E
to such fraudulent act or conduct is non est and void ab initio
- No person should be allowed to keep an advantage which
has been obtained by fraud - Respondents inflated their
marks in order to obtain admission in the Primary Teachers' .,,.. ~

Training Institute - Thus, the admission sought for was
F
through an illegal means which is deprecated - No fault can
be found with the course of action taken by the appellant -
Also respondents were issued show cause notice and were
given an opportunity of hearing - Thus, there was no violation
of the principles of natural justice - Order passed by the
G Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and that of the ' "t'

Single Judge of the High Court is restored - Doctrines/
Principles - Natural justice.
Ram Preeti Yadav v, UP. Board of High School and
H 546
DISTRICT PRIMARY SCHOOL COUNCIL, WB v. 547
MRITUNJOY DAS & ORS.

·--+--. lntermediateEducation and Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 311: 2003 (3) A
Suppl. SCR 352 - referred to. ·

Case Law Reference
2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 352 Referred to. Para 7
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6007 of 2011.

From the Judgment & Order dated 28.04.201 Oof the High
Court of Calcutta in MAT No. 254 of 2010.
c
WITH
C.A. No. 6008 of 2011.

Deba Prasad Mukherjee, Nandini Sen for the Appellant.

Sahasrangshu Bhattacharjee, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, D
Abhijit Sengupta, B.P. Yadav for the Respondents.

The following order of the Court was delivered by

ORDER
E
1. Leave granted.

2. As the facts and the legal issues arising for our
consideration in both these appeals are similar, we propose
- -'-. to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment and F
order.

3. The contesting respondents herein got themselves
admitted for a training course, for obtaining the Primary
Teachers' Training Institute certificate, which is pre-requisite and G
mandatory in order to get appointment as Assistant Teacher
.../ ) in primar)' schools in West Bengal. The contesting respondents
herein obtained certificates after completing their training
course. Thereafter, they also submitted their candidature for
such appointment as Assistant Teacher in primary school in
which they were selected and were consequently appointed as H
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
- t-
A teachers. However, subsequently, it was found that they had
taken admission in the aforesaid training course for Primary
Teachers' Training Institute Certificate by inflating their marks.
It is pointed out that in the said institute, where they got
admission for undergoing training, the minimum marks that one
B had to obtain for admission in that particular year was 600. Both
• ...
~

the contesting respondents inflated their marks. In one case, it
was 621 as against 430 marks actually obtained and in the
other case, it was 614 as against actual obtained marks of 425.
After the aforesaid fact came to light, the appellant herein
c issued show cause notice to the contesting respondents and
the contesting respondents were also called for a personal
hearing. However, none of the contesting respondents availed
the opportunity of personal hearing given to them despite the
fact they submitted their replies to the show cause notices. The t <'
appellant thereafter passed orders dismissing the contesting
D J:
respondents from service.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the
contesting respondents herein filed writ petitions in the Calcutta
High Court which were dismissed. On appeals filed by the
E contesting respondents before the Division Bench of the High
Court, the same were allowed as against which the present
appeals have been filed.

5. The issue that arises for our consideration in these ~- .
F appeals is whether the aforesaid order of dismissal issued by
the appellant was justified in view of the fact that at the time of
appointment as Assistant Teacher in primary school, there was
no fraud played by the contesting respondents and that they had
got the appointment after qualifying in the test held for
appointment as Assistant Teacher in primary schools. It is
G
submitted that they had also completed the training course ' y

successfully and got the appointment after duly qualifying in the
test and, therefore, the allegation which is prior to the said date
could not and should not have been given a weightage so as
to disentitle the contesting respondents from continuing with
H
DISTRICT PRIMARY SCHOOL COUNCIL, WB v. 549
-f v '
MRITUNJOY DAS & ORS.
· their job. These were the contentions of the learned counsel for A
the contesting respondents in the writ petition.

6. Jhe contentions of the appellant who were respondents
in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge are that
• ,J
once a fraud is played and certificate is obtained fraudulently,
-\ B
such conduct is required to be considered as adverse. It was
submitted that obtaining a certificate in a fradulent manner,
makes the certificate itself non-est arid void ab initio. It is aiso
submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
that the aforesaid- action of dismissal from service of the
contesting respondents was taken in view of their conduct as c
it was thought that a person of such a conduct should not be
allowed to be appointed and continue as a teacher in a primary
> ., school as at the stage the students whom the respondents are
going to teach are in formative stage.
x D
. 7. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for
the parties. On going through the records placed before us, what
we find is that the contesting respondents herein inflated their
marks in order to obtain admission in the primary teachers'
training institute. Had the marks not been inflated in the E
· aforesaid manner, the contesting respondents would not have
got the admission in that particular institute as it is disclosed
from the records. Therefore, the admission sought for was
.-+-
'-i
through an illegal means which is to be deprecated. The
conduct of the contesting respondents being such, we cannot F
find fault with the course of action taken by the appellant herein.
It is not that the contesting respondents were not given any
opportunity of hearing. They were given a show cause noti~e
and were also given an opportunity of hearing which opportunity
they did not accept although they subm_itted. a reply to t~e ~how G
...-)
cause notice. There is, therefore, no v1olat1on of the pnnc1ples
of natural justice in the present case. If a particular act is
fraudulent, any consequential order to such fradulent act or
conduct is non est and void ab initio and, therefore, we cannot
find any fault with the action of the appellant in dismissing the h
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

.fl. service of the contesting respondents. In this context we refer
to the decision of this Court in Ram Preeti Yadav v. U. P. Board
of High School and Intermediate Education and Others
reported in (2003) 8 sec 311 for the proposition that no person
should be allowed to keep an advantage which he has obtained
s by fraud.
8. In view of the aforesaid position, we set aside the
judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the
Calcutta High Court and restore the order passed by the learned
C Single Judge of the High Court.

9. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent leaving
the parties to bear their own costs.

N.J. Appeals allowed.