Case Background
The petitioner was provisionally engaged as a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer/Mail Carrier (GDSMD/MC) at Hariharpur Branch Office, in account with Surpatganj Sub Office. His engagement order was dated 20.05.2014.
According to him, he continued in this postal job until 29.01.2016. On that date, he suddenly received a termination letter from the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Madhepura, discontinuing his engagement.
The petitioner had been selected on the basis of having passed the Secondary School (High School) Examination in 2011 from the “Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi.” This qualification was part of the basis on which he was provisionally engaged as GDSMD/MC.
Aggrieved by the termination, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, by filing Original Application (O.A.) No. 050/00144/2016. On 25.07.2019, the Tribunal dismissed his case and affirmed the termination order dated 29.01.2016.
The petitioner then filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 549 of 2021 before the Patna High Court. He sought to set aside the Tribunal’s order and to get directions for reinstatement on the GDS post along with back wages and interest.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikash Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan, heard the writ petition through video conference on 06.08.2021.
At the outset, counsel for the petitioner filed an undertaking that defects pointed out in the case file would be removed, and that conditions relating to e-filing would be complied with after normal physical functioning of the Court resumed, and in any case within one month.
On merits, the petitioner challenged two things: first, the Tribunal’s order dated 25.07.2019 upholding his termination; and second, the original termination order dated 29.01.2016 issued by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Madhepura.
He also sought a writ of mandamus to direct the postal authorities, especially the Superintendent of Post Offices, Saharsa Division, to allow him to resume duties as GDSMD/MC at Hariharpur Branch Office. Along with this, he asked for payment of back wages and unpaid salary with interest.
The petitioner’s main plank was that his dismissal violated natural justice. He argued that no show cause notice was given and no opportunity of hearing was provided before the termination order was passed.
He further submitted that his High School qualification from the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, had been recognized by the Government of India, Ministry of Education, New Delhi. On this basis, he argued that his appointment could not be questioned merely because it depended on this certificate.
To support his plea, he relied on two earlier decisions of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 9694 of 2017 and CWJC No. 16278 of 2011. In those cases, termination orders had been quashed on the ground that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing, and they were directed to be reinstated.
The respondents, representing the Union of India and postal authorities, chose not to go into all factual and procedural details. Instead, they relied directly on binding precedents of a Division Bench of the same Court.
They referred to CWJC No. 18812 of 2017 (Pankaj Kumar vs. The Union of India and Others) and CWJC No. 26 of 2018 (Vivek Kumar vs. The Union of India and Others). In these cases, the core question had been whether a matriculation-equivalent certificate from the Board of Higher Secondary Education, New Delhi could lawfully be used to secure employment in the Postal Department.
The Division Bench in those earlier matters had given a clear finding. It described the Board of Higher Secondary Education, New Delhi as “a fake organization” and “not an educational institution but a fraudulent organization selling fake certificates.” The Bench held that if the educational qualification itself was not genuine, then any employment gained on that basis could not give a right to continue in service.
In those judgments, the Court also made a strong observation that candidates should “acquire knowledge instead of buying knowledge from such institutions.” On that reasoning, the Court had refused to interfere with the Tribunal’s orders and dismissed the writ petitions.
The Patna High Court in the present case noted that these very matters had been taken to the Supreme Court of India through Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4171 of 2019 and analogous cases. The Supreme Court examined how the communication dated 26.04.2013 about the status of the “Board of Higher Secondary Education” had been issued.
Affidavits filed before the Supreme Court by the concerned authorities showed that the Board of Higher Secondary Education was not recognized at all. It was also stated that documents appended to the Special Leave Petitions were not correct copies of the originals and were not on the official files.
In view of these serious issues, the Supreme Court had directed the Union of India to publish advertisements in newspapers and in the public domain, clearly stating that the said Board was not recognized and warning the student community. The Court recorded that such an advertisement had in fact been issued and affidavits of compliance filed.
After noting this, the Supreme Court concluded that nothing further was required in those cases and disposed of the Special Leave Petitions.
Against this background, the Patna High Court in the present writ petition examined the petitioner’s challenge. The Bench took note of the firm finding of the earlier Division Bench that the Board of Higher Secondary Education, New Delhi is a fake and fraudulent organisation issuing fake certificates. It also noted that this finding had effectively stood, as the Supreme Court did not overturn it.
With that central fact settled, the Court examined whether the petitioner’s arguments based on violation of natural justice could still help him. The petitioner had relied on single-judge decisions where termination orders were set aside because no opportunity of hearing was given.
The Bench held that, in the face of the clear Division Bench and Supreme Court proceedings on the status of the Board, those single-judge decisions could not assist the petitioner. The Court reasoned that remanding the matter to the authorities only to give him a hearing would be an “empty formality.”
This was because, even if a fresh hearing was given, the basic legal position remained unchanged: the Board from which the petitioner claimed his High School qualification had been found to be fake and unrecognized. The petitioner’s own counsel fairly stated that the status of the Board had not undergone any change.
Therefore, the Court concluded that the writ petition had no merit. Since the appointment itself was based on a fake educational qualification, the petitioner could not insist on continuation in service or on payment of back wages. The Central Administrative Tribunal’s order upholding the termination needed no interference.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court also directed its office to ensure that the petitioner complied with earlier directions about removal of defects and notices, and to bring the matter to the Court’s notice if he failed to do so within the stipulated time.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment sends a strong message to job seekers and government employees in Bihar and beyond. If a person gets government employment on the basis of a certificate from a fake or unrecognized board, the Court will not protect that job, even if there were procedural lapses like lack of prior notice.
For candidates aspiring to posts like Gramin Dak Sevak, it underlines the need to check whether the board or institution issuing their certificates is properly recognized. A fake certificate can not only cost them their job, but also shut the door on relief from the Court.
The ruling also clarifies that when a higher Bench of the Patna High Court and the Supreme Court have already held a particular institution to be fake, later Benches will treat that as settled. In such a situation, seeking a fresh hearing on natural justice grounds may not help.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Can a person continue in a postal employment obtained on the strength of a High School certificate from the “Board of Higher Secondary Education, New Delhi”?
Answer: No. Following earlier Division Bench rulings, affirmed in Supreme Court proceedings, the Court treated this Board as a fake and fraudulent organisation, so employment based on its certificates cannot give a right to continue in service.
Issue: Does the alleged absence of a show cause notice or hearing before termination require interference or remand in such cases?
Answer: No. The Court held that remanding the matter for observance of natural justice would be an empty formality, since the foundational qualification was invalid and the Board’s fake status had already been finally settled.
Cases Cited by the Court
CWJC No. 18812 of 2017, Pankaj Kumar vs. The Union of India and Others (Division Bench, Patna High Court).
CWJC No. 26 of 2018, Vivek Kumar vs. The Union of India and Others (Division Bench, Patna High Court).
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4171 of 2019 and analogous cases, Supreme Court of India (order dated 27.09.2019 concerning “Board of Higher Secondary Education”).
The petitioner also cited CWJC No. 9694 of 2017 and CWJC No. 16278 of 2011 (Single Judge decisions of the Patna High Court), but the Bench held these did not help in view of the subsequent Division Bench and Supreme Court developments.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 549 of 2021
Case Title: Rahul Kumar vs. The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2022 (1) PLJR 307
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikash Jain, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan
Date of Judgment: 06-08-2021
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Jitendra Kumar Giri, Advocate
- For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Central Government Counsel (CGC)
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal affirming termination from Gramin Dak Sevak employment.
Link to Judgment: Full text of judgment on Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
