REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6007 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 26688 of 2010)

DISTRICT PRIMARY SCHOOL COUNCIL, WB                Appellant(s)

VERSUS

MRITUNJOY DAS & ORS.                           Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6008 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 26689 of 2010)

O R D E R  

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 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  mandatory  in  

order to get appointment as Assistant Teacher in primary schools  

in  West  Bengal.   The  contesting  respondents  herein  obtained  

certificates  after  completing  their  training  course.   Thereafter,  

Page 1 of 6

they also submitted their candidature for such appointment as  

Assistant Teacher in primary school in which they were selected  

and  were  consequently  appointed  as  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 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 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  appellant  thereafter  

passed  orders  dismissing  the  contesting  respondents  from  

service.   

4. Being aggrieved by the  said order  of  dismissal,  the  contesting  

respondents herein filed writ petitions in the Calcutta High Court  

Page 2 of 6

which  were  dismissed.  On  appeals  filed  by  the  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 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 submitted that they  

had also completed the training course 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  their  job.   These  were  the  

contentions of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents  

in the writ petition.

6.   The contentions of the appellant who were respondents in the  

writ  petition  before  the  learned  Single  Judge  are  that  once  a  

fraud  is  played  and  certificate  is  obtained  fraudulently,  such  

conduct is required to be considered as adverse. It was submitted  

Page 3 of 6

that  obtaining  a  certificate  in  a  fradulent  manner,  makes  the  

certificate itself non-est and void ab initio. It is also 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  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.

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  

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 through an  

illegal  means  which  is  to  be  deprecated.   The  conduct  of  the  

contesting respondents being such, we cannot 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 notice and were also  

Page 4 of 6

given an opportunity of hearing which opportunity they did not  

accept although they submitted a reply to the show cause notice.  

There is, therefore, no violation of the principles 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  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  

SCC 311 for the proposition that no person should be allowed to  

keep an advantage which he has obtained 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 Single Judge of the  

High Court.   

9. The  appeals  are  allowed  to  the  aforesaid  extent  leaving  the  

parties to bear their own costs.

................................................. ..J.

(DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

Page 5 of 6

.............................................J. (ANIL R. DAVE)

NEW DELHI JULY 27, 2011.

Page 6 of 6