Inflating Academic Marks in Application Forms Is Not ‘Human Error’: Allahabad HC Upholds Termination of Assistant Teachers

The Allahabad High Court recently upheld the termination of assistant teachers appointed through the 69,000 Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination (ATRE) 2019 who were found to have secured selection by mentioning higher academic marks than actually obtained.

The bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held that entering higher marks than actually obtained is not a mere clerical lapse but a conscious act that distorts the merit-based recruitment process and vitiates the appointment from its inception.

"The candidates’ act of furnishing inflated academic marks constitutes a material misrepresentation. Their subsequent appointment is, therefore, vitiated ab initio," the bench said.

The petitions were filed by two sets of candidates whose services were terminated in May 2025 on the ground that they had mentioned increased marks while applying for the post of assistant teacher. The recruitment process stemmed from a Government Order dated 1 December 2018, pursuant to which ATRE 2019 was conducted for filling 69,000 posts. The petitioners cleared the examination, were selected in the final list issued in June 2020, and joined service in Kushinagar district in September 2021.

During counselling and subsequent verification, objections were raised regarding discrepancies in academic marks mentioned in application forms. The State government, through Government Orders and circulars issued between December 2020 and January 2021, permitted candidates to submit affidavits to explain discrepancies. After scrutiny, appointment letters were issued, and the petitioners continued in service for nearly five years.

However, in May 2025, the Basic Education authorities reviewed the records and found that several candidates had filled higher marks than those reflected in their original academic documents. Acting on directions issued by the Secretary, Board of Basic Education on 9 May 2025, district authorities terminated the services of such teachers on 21 May 2025.

Challenging the termination, the petitioners argued that they possessed the requisite qualifications and that the alleged discrepancies were either minor, already rectified, or the result of bonafide human error. They contended that having served for almost five years, their services could not be terminated without following the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 and the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. They also invoked the principle of estoppel, arguing that the State, having permitted rectification and granted appointments, could not revisit the issue after such a long delay.

The State opposed the petitions, asserting that candidates who placed themselves in an “advantageous position” by inflating marks were liable to have their candidature cancelled, as clarified by Government Orders and upheld by the Supreme Court. It was argued that such misrepresentation struck at the root of fairness and equality in public recruitment and could not be condoned as human error.

After examining the records, court drew a clear distinction between candidates who had gained undue advantage and those whose errors did not result in inflation of marks.

The bench found that most petitioners had deliberately mentioned higher marks than actually obtained, thereby securing an artificial advantage in the merit list. Their appointments were held to be vitiated ab initio.

However, court found that four petitioners, namely Preeti, Manish Kumar Mahaur, Rinku Singh, and Sweety Shokeen, did not inflate their marks and, in some cases, had even placed themselves at a disadvantage due to the manner of disclosure or subsequent revision of marks by universities. In their cases, court held that the appointments were based on actual merit and could not be cancelled.

Accordingly, the termination orders were quashed only in respect of these four petitioners, while the writ petitions of the remaining candidates were dismissed.

Case Title: Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhary And 6 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Judgment Date: December 16, 2025

Bench: Justice Manju Rani Chauhan