LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/shyam-nandan-mehta-vs-santosh-kumar-ors-20250429/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Shyam Nandan Mehta vs Santosh Kumar & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
29 April 2025
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 5679 of 2025
Result
Allowed
Bench
Dipankar Datta, Prashant Kumar Mishra
Citation
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2073 : 2025 INSC 586
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2073 : 2025 INSC 586
Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to correctness of the order passed by the High Courts declaring the appointment of appellant to be illegal making him liable to be terminated from service forthwith.
Headnote

Service law – Appointment – Recruitment process – Allegation of manipulation in the recruitment process – Appellant appointed to the post of assistant teacher – Two years thereafter, writ petition by first respondent alleging that the appointment of the appellant based on manipulation in TET examination certificate wherein he showed his caste status under Most Backward Class (MBC) category whereas in the selection process he showed himself to be Backward Class (BC) category – Writ petition allowed holding that the first respondent committed manipulation in procuring the TET certificate – Correctness: Held: Instant case is not where there is any allegation against the appellant either by the Academic Council or by recruiting agency that the appellant has fraudulently declared his caste status as ‘MBC’ though he actually belongs to ‘BC’ – Appellant secured more marks than respondent no.1 – He did not obtain any weightage of marks or relaxation by claiming to be belonging to ‘BC’ category which is his actual caste category – Genuineness of his caste certificate is also not questioned – No evidence that the appellant committed any manipulation in the recruitment process – Appellant has not submitted any incorrect information at the time of counselling – Recruiting agency has not cancelled appellant’s appointment on the allegation of submitting incorrect information – It is for the recruiting agency to take action against any candidate if incorrect information is supplied – Same cannot be made a foundation for allowing the writ petition when the said information does not affect the candidate’s eligibility to appear in the examination – Not a case of submission of false certificates of qualifying examination or a false caste certificate – High Court wrongly set aside the appellant’s appointment – Impugned order set aside. [Paras 10-12]

Keywords: Intermediate Trained Assistant Teacher · Assistant teacher · Manipulation in TET examination certificate · Caste status · Most Backward Class · Backward Class · Manipulation and illegality in the selection process · Manipulation in procuring TET certificate · Illegal appointment · Fraudulently declaring caste status · Genuineness of class certificate · Duty on applicant to provide correct information · Recruiting agency · False caste certificate

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Leave granted. 2. The appellant would call in question the impugned judgment dated 10.02.2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dismissing his Letter Patent Appeal affirming the order dated 22.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge declaring the appointment of the appellant to be illegal making him liable to be terminated from service forthwith and directed the State to conclude the verification of the relevant documents of the concerned for consideration of the writ petitioner’s case for appointment on the post of A
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →