MANU/UP/1756/2021

Equivalent Citation: 2021(8)ADJ275, 2021(6) ALJ 258, 2021 (148) ALR 565, [2021(171)FLR747]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4812 of 2021
Decided On: 31.08.2021
Appellants: Malti Devi
Vs.
Respondent: State of U.P. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Ravi Nath Tilhari, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Babloo Pant
For Respondents/Defendant: C.S.C.
JUDGMENT
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
1. Heard Sri Babloo Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Alok Singh, learned
Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order titled as "Recovery Notice" dated 10.7.20020 issued by the
District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi (i.e. Respondent No. 3) to the writ
petition.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi (i.e. respondent No. 3) to forthwith,
release the salary of the petitioner with effect from April, 2017 till today as and
when it falls due and not to cause any interference in the working of the
petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in Mehewaghat Sarsawan Primary
School, Kaushambi."
Facts
3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner obtained appointment
as Assistant Teacher in an institution run by U.P. Basic Education Board, vide order of
appointment issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi. By order dated
14.8.2018, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the
petitioner had obtained public employment on the post of Assistant Teacher on the basis
of forged T.E.T. Certificate/marksheet 2011. It appears that against the aforesaid order
of cancellation of appointment dated 14.8.2018, the petitioner filed Writ A No. 5185 of
2019 (Malti Devi and another v. State of U.P. and others) in which an interim order
dated 8.7.2019 was passed staying the effect and operation of the order dated
14.8.2018.

14-02-2022 (Page 1 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 4 . It appears that the petitioner has obtained salary from the State-exchequer.
Consequently, the impugned recovery notice dated 10.7.2020 was issued by the
respondent No. 3 to the petitioner, which is reproduced below:

5. Aggrieved with the aforequoted recovery notice, the petitioner has filed the present
writ petition.
Submissions of the Petitioner
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as under:
(i) Against the order of cancellation of her appointment as Assistant Teacher,
the petitioner has filed Writ A No. 5185 of 2019 (Malti Devi and another v.
State of U.P. and others) in which an interim order dated 8.7.2019, staying the
effect and operation of the order dated 14.8.2018, was passed. Therefore, no
salary can be recovered from the petitioner.
(ii) Similar writ petitions were decided by the Hon'ble Single Judge against
which a Special Appeal Defective 240 of 2020 (Kiran Lata Singh v. State of LLP.
Through Secretary, Department of Basic Education and 5 others) was filed in

14-02-2022 (Page 2 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 which an interim order dated 31.7.2020 has been passed, therefore, salary
cannot be recovered from the petitioner.
Submissions on behalf of the State
7. Learned standing counsel submits as under:
(i) The Special Appeal Defective No. 240 of 2020 has been finally decided by
the Division Bench and the said Special Appeal alongwith all connected Special
Appeals have been dismissed. Therefore, the submission of the petitioner on
the basis of interim order in Special Appeal Defective 240 of 2020 is wholly
misconceived.
(ii) The dispute involved in Special Appeal Defective No. 240 of 2020 was with
regard to forged B.Ed. Degree and" not the forged T.E.T. Certificate. Therefore,
in any circumstances, the case of the petitioner being different on the facts, the
petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
(iii) When salary to the petitioner Was not paid after cancellation of
appointment, the petitioner filed Writ A No. 1148 of 2020 (Malti Devi and
another v. State of U.P. and 2 others) which was disposed of by order dated
23.1.2020, directing authority concerned to decide claim of the petitioner in
regard to payment of salary and the representation was disposed of by order
dated 24.4.2020.
(iv) The petitioner is not entitled to any relief inasmuch as a direction issued by
this Court by order dated 18.3.2021 to obtain verification report of T.E.T.
Certificate of the petitioner, the same was verified and it was found that alleged
T.E.T. Certificate year 2011 in favour of the petitioner bearing Roll No.
15054567 was never issued by the office of the Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj.
(v) Referring to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the short counter-affidavit dated
24.3.2021, it is submitted that the alleged T.E.T. Certificate is forged and
manufactured and it has not been issued by the Board of High School and
Intermediate Education and in support, a copy of verification report has been
filed as an Annexure S.C.A.-1. The verification report filed alongwith the short
counter-affidavit has not been disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled for any relief inasmuch as, after undisputed facts have
been brought on record by means of the verification report of the Secretary,
Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj,
dated 23.3.2021, the fact of obtaining public employment by the petitioner on
the basis of forged T.E.T. Certificate 2011, is undisputed and, therefore, the
petitioner cannot take advantage of her own fraud.
Questions
8. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties following questions were framed
for determination in this writ petition by order dated 24.3.2021:
(i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned
recovery notice dated 10.7.2020 is valid?
(ii) Whether recovery of salary can be made where the order of appointment is

14-02-2022 (Page 3 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 cancelled on the ground that the appointment itself was obtained by forged
eligibility educational certificate?
Discussion and Findings
9 . Since both the questions are interlinked and, therefore, both the aforementioned
questions are taken up together for decision.
Whether TET Certificate Filed by the Petitioner is Forged
10. The sole point of dispute between the parties is as to whether the T.E.T. Certificate
2011 bearing Roll No. 15054567, is forged or genuine. Therefore, by order dated
18.3.2021, this Court directed the learned standing counsel to obtain instructions and
verification report of the alleged T.E.T. Certificate from the respondent No. 2 i.e. the
Board of High School and Intermediate Education Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj, which
allegedly issued the aforesaid T.E.T. Certificate. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, Sri
Divyakant Shukla, Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar
Pradesh, Prayagraj, has filed a short counter-affidavit dated 24.3.2021. In paragraphs 3,
4 and 5 of his short counter-affidavit he (respondent No. 2) stated as under:
"3. That it is submitted before this Hon'ble Court that TET Certificate-year 2011
in favour of the petitioner namely Malti Devi Roll No. 15054567 never issued by
the office of the answering respondent.
4 . That it appears the aforesaid TET Certificate is forged and manufactured
because of it has not been issued by the office of the answering respondent.
5 . That in this regard the enquiry has been conducted and record has been
verified to assist this Hon'ble Court. For the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court
copy of the verification report is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure
S.C.A. 1 to this affidavit."
11. The verification report dated 23.3.2021, filed alongwith the aforesaid short counter-
affidavit is reproduced below:

12. Thus, it is proved on record that the alleged T.E.T. Certificate 2011 bearing Roll No.
15054567 in the name of the petitioner and allegedly issued by the Board of High
School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj, is forged and
manufactured. The Board of High School and Intermediate Education has, after due

14-02-2022 (Page 4 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 inquiry and verification stated in the short counter-affidavit that the aforesaid alleged
T.E.T. Certificate is forged and manufactured and it was not issued by the office of the
Board. The verification report and relevant paragraphs of the short counter-affidavit
have been quoted above. Thus, the facts as aforenoted, leave no manner of doubt that
the aforesaid alleged T.E.T. Certificate 2011 on the basis of which the petitioner
obtained public employment on the post of Assistant Teacher, is forged and
manufactured.
Fraud and its consequences
13. Since the public employment was obtained by the petitioner on the basis of forged
and manufactured T.E.T. Certificate, therefore, the appointment so obtained was void ab
initio. Faced with this situation, this Court cannot consciously follow a wrong path by
interfering with the impugned recovery notice and protect the petitioner from the
consequences of fraud committed by her or to enable her to take advantage of her own
fraud. It is well-settled that fraud and justice never dwell together and no one can take
advantage of his/her own fraud.
1 4 . In the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. B. Rajendra Singh and
others, JT 2000 (3) SC 151, considering the fact of fraud, Hon'ble Supreme Court held
in paragraph 3 as under:
"Fraud and justice never dwell together." (Frans et jus nunquam cohabitant) is
a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper overall these centuries. Lord
Denning observed in a language without equivocation that" no judgment of a
Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by
fraud, for fraud unravels everything "(Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Beasley, 1956 (1)
QB 702).
1 5 . In the case of Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another v.
Girdhari Lal Yadav, MANU/SC/1303/2004 : 2004 (6) SCC 325, Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the applicability of principles of natural justice in cases involving fraud and
held in paragraph 12 as under:
"12. Furthermore, the respondent herein has been found guilty of an act of
fraud. In opinion, no further opportunity of hearing is necessary to be afforded
to him. It is not necessary to dwell into the matter any further as recently in the
case of Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi, this Court has noticed:
"15. Commission of fraud on Court and suppression of material facts
are the core issues involved in these matters. Fraud as is well-known
vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwells together.
1 6 . Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the
other person, or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a
response to the conduct of former either by word or letter.
It is also well-settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud.
Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief
against fraud.
1 8 . A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in
leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to
believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes

14-02-2022 (Page 5 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues
therefrom although the motive from which the representations
proceeded may not have been bad."
19. In Derry v. Peek, (1889) 14AC 337 it was held: "In an action of deceit the
plaintiff must prove actual fraud. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false
representation has been made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or
recklessly, without caring whether it be true or false.
A false statement, made through carelessness and without reasonable ground
for believing it to be true, may be evidence of fraud but does not necessarily
amount to fraud. Such a statement, if made in the honest belief that it is true,
is not fraudulent and does not render the person make it liable to an action of
deceit."
16. In the case of Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and others, MANU/SC/0802/2003
: 2003(8) SCC 319, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, 25 and
37 as under:
"15. Commission of fraud on Court and suppression of material facts are the
core issues involved in these matters. Fraud as is well-known vitiates every
solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwells together.
1 6 . Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other
person, or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the
conduct of former either by word or letter.
1 7 . It is also well-settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud.
Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against
fraud.
18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a
man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on
falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows
to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the
representations proceeded may not have been bad.
25. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is
anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be
perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res
judicata.
37. It will bear repetition to state that any order obtained by practising fraud
on Court is also non-est in the eyes of law."
17. In the case of S.P. Chengal Varaya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs v. Jagannath (dead) by
L.Rs and others, MANU/SC/0192/1994 : AIR 1994 SC 853, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held in para 7 as under:
"7. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before
the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case,
Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the Court. The
High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly
perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast

14-02-2022 (Page 6 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 upon the plaintiff to come to Court with a true case and prove it by true
evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the
extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of
dishonest litigants. The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between
the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are
constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being
abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other
unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court-process a convenient
lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a
person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court.
He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation."
18. In the case of Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P., MANU/SC/0605/2012 : 2012 (8)
SCC 748, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the fact of appointment obtained by fraud
and held in para 29.1 to 29.10 as under:
"29.1 Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be legitimately treated
as voidable at the option of the employer or could be recalled by the employer
and in such cases merely because the respondent employee has continued in
service for a number of years, on the basis of such fraudulently obtained
employment, cannot get any equity in his favour or any estoppel against the
employer.
2 9 .2 Verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important
criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to the post under the
State and on account of his antecedents the appointing authority if find not
desirable to appoint a person to a disciplined force can it be said to be
unwarranted.
2 9 .3 When appointment was procured by a person on the basis of forged
documents, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer
and, therefore, it would create no equity in his favour or any estoppel against
the employer while resorting to termination without holding any inquiry.
29.4 A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false
information cannot claim right to continue in service and the employer, having
regard to the nature of employment as well as other aspects, has the discretion
to terminate his services.
29.5 Purpose of calling for information regarding involvement in any criminal
case or detention or conviction is for the purpose of verification of the
character/antecedents at the time of recruitment and suppression of such
material information will have clear bearing on the character and antecedents of
the candidate in relation to his continuity in service.
29.6 The person who suppressed the material information and/or gives false
information cannot claim any right for appointment or continuity in service.
29.7 The standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service
is quite distinct from other services and, therefore, any deliberate statement or
omission regarding a vital information can be seriously viewed and the ultimate
decision of the appointing authority cannot be faulted.
29.8 An employee on probation can be discharged from service or may be

14-02-2022 (Page 7 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 refused employment on the ground of suppression of material information or
making false statement relating to his involvement in the criminal case,
conviction or detention, even if ultimately he was acquitted of the said case,
inasmuch as such a situation would make a person undesirable or unsuitable
for the post.
29.9 An employee in the uniformed service pre-supposes a higher level of
integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary
such a service born in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated.
2 9 . 1 0 The authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing
Constables, are under duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate to find out
whether he is suitable for the post of a Constable and so long as the candidate
has not been acquitted in the criminal case, he cannot be held to be suitable for
appointment to the post of Constable."
(Emphasis supplied by us)
Equitable Jurisdiction
19. Public employment has been procured by the petitioner on the basis of a forged TET
Certificate. This amounts to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer. Fraud vitiates
every solemn act. Therefore, it would not create equity in favour of the petitioner so as
to get protection from recovery of the amount under the impugned recovery certificate.
20. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an equitable
jurisdiction. Facts of the present case reveal that petitioner has no equity in his favour.
Therefore, the equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioner on the facts of the
present case
Recovery
2 1 . Since public employment on the post of Assistant Teacher was obtained by the
petitioner on the basis of a forged and manufactured T.E.T. marksheet 2011 which
resulted in cancellation of her appointment, therefore, the amount received by the
petitioner as salary and other benefits relating to her employment is a fraudulently
received amount from the State-exchequer. Therefore, the salary so drawn by the
petitioner is liable to be recovered from her. Recovery of excess payment from an
employee is refused only where the excess payment is made by the employer by
applying a wrong method or principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on a
particular interpretation of the applicable rules, which is subsequently found to be
erroneous. But where the payment from State-exchequer is made as a result of any
misrepresentation, fraud or collusion, Courts will not use their discretion to deny the
right to recover the excess payment. The view being taken by us is fortified by the law
laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana and
others v. Israil Khan and others, MANU/SC/1786/2009 : (2010) 1 SCC 440 (para 9). In
Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand and others, MANU/SC/0656/2012 : (2012)
8 SCC 417 (paras 13 and 14) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that any amount
paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions
of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an
obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust
enrichment.

14-02-2022 (Page 8 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 2 2 . In the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White washer),
MANU/SC/1195/2014 : 2015 4 SCC 334 (para 15) Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under:
"................the right to recover would be sustainable so long as the same was
not iniquitous or arbitrary."
23. It is settled principle of law that no one can take advantage of his own wrong or
fraud. The amount fraudulently obtained by a person, if allowed to be retained, shall
result in unjust enrichment. In the case of Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action v.
Union of India, MANU/SC/0837/2011 : (2011) 8 SCC 161 (para 151, 152, 153, 154,
159, 160, 161 and 197), Hon'ble Supreme Court explained meaning of the word "unjust
enrichment" as under:
"151. Unjust enrichment has been defined as:
"A benefit obtained from another, not intended as a gift and not legally
justifiable, for which the beneficiary must make restitution or
recompense."
See Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition (Bryan A. Garner) at page
1573. A claim for unjust enrichment arises where there has been an
"unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another, or the retention of
money or property of another against the fundamental principles of
justice or equity and good conscience."
152. 'Unjust enrichment' has been defined by the Court as the unjust retention
of a benefit to the loss of another, or the retention of money or property of
another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good
conscience. A person is enriched if he has received a benefit, and he is unjustly
enriched if retention of the benefit would be unjust. Unjust enrichment of a
person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits which in justice and
equity belong to another.
153. Unjust enrichment is "the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of
another, or the retention of money or property of another against the
fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience." A defendant
may be liable "even when the defendant retaining the benefit is not a
wrongdoer" and "even though he may have received [it] honestly in the first
instance." (Schock v. Nash, 732 A.2d 217, 232-33 (Delaware. 1999). USA)
1 5 4 . Unjust enrichment occurs when the defendant wrongfully secures a
benefit or passively receives a benefit which would be unconscionable to retain.
In the leading case of Fibrosa v. Fairbairn, MANU/UKHL/0002/1942 : [1942] 2
All ER 122, Lord Wright stated the principle thus:
"....Any civilized system of law is bound to provide remedies for cases
of what has been called unjust enrichment or unjust benefit, that is, to
prevent a man from retaining the money of, or some benefit derived
from another which it is against conscience that he should keep. Such
remedies in English law are generically different from remedies in
contract or in tort, and are now recognized to fall within a third
category of the common law which has been called quasi-contract or
restitution."

14-02-2022 (Page 9 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 159. Unjust enrichment is basic to the subject of restitution, and is indeed
approached as a fundamental principle thereof. They are usually linked
together, and restitution is frequently based upon the theory of unjust
enrichment. However, although unjust enrichment is often referred to or
regarded as a ground for restitution, it is perhaps more accurate to regard it as
a prerequisite, for usually there can be no restitution without unjust
enrichment. It is defined as the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of
another or the retention of money or property of another against the
fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience. A person is
enriched if he has received a benefit, and he is unjustly enriched if retention of
the benefit would be unjust. Unjust enrichment of a person occurs when he has
and retains money or benefits which injustice and equity belong to another.
1 6 0 . While the term 'restitution' was considered by the Supreme Court in
South-Eastern Coalfields, MANU/SC/0807/2003 : 2003 (8) SCC 648 and other
cases excerpted later, the term 'unjust enrichment' came to be considered in
Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise &
Customs, (MANU/SC/0187/2005 : (2005) 3 SCC 738). This Court said:
(Sahakari Khand case SCC p. 748, para 31)
"31.....'Unjust enrichment' means retention of a benefit by a person
that is unjust or inequitable. 'Unjust enrichment' occurs when a person
retains money or benefits which injustice, equity and good conscience,
belong to someone else."
161. The terms 'unjust enrichment' and 'restitution' are like the two shades of
green - one leaning towards yellow and the other towards blue. With
restitution, so long as the deprivation of the other has not been fully
compensated for, injustice to that extent remains. Which label is appropriate
under which circumstances would depend on the facts of the particular case
before the Court. The Courts have wide powers to grant restitution, and more
so where it relates to misuse or non-compliance with Court orders.
197. The other aspect which has been dealt with in great details is to neutralize
any unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by the litigants. While
adjudicating, the Courts must keep the following principles in view.
1. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the Court to neutralize any
unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by any party by invoking
the jurisdiction of the Court.
2. When a party applies and gets a stay or injunction from the Court, it
is always at the risk and responsibility of the party applying. An order
of stay cannot be presumed to be conferment of additional right upon
the litigating party.
3. Unscrupulous litigants be prevented from taking undue advantage by
invoking jurisdiction of the Court.
4 . A person in wrongful possession should not only be removed from
that place as early as possible but be compelled to pay for wrongful
use of that premises fine, penalty and costs. Any leniency would
seriously affect the credibility of the judicial system.

14-02-2022 (Page 10 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 5. No litigant can derive benefit from the mere pendency of a case in a
Court of law.
6. A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of his own wrongs.
7. Litigation should not be permitted to turn into a fruitful industry so
that the unscrupulous litigants are encouraged to invoke the
jurisdiction of the Court.
8 . The institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any
advantage on a party by delayed action of Courts."
24. The petitioner has obtained employment by misrepresentation and fraud and thus
unauthorisedly and fraudulently received payment of public money. Neither extreme
hardship in recovery has been argued before us nor any material has been placed to
indicate extreme hardship on recovery of the amount. That apart, the equitable and
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be
invoked by the petitioner under the facts and circumstances of the present case. The
principle laid down in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) have been reiterated by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White
washer), MANU/SC/0621/2014 : (2014) 8 SCC 883. In the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal
(supra) vide para 16, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "in such circumstances, we find
no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. However, we order the
excess payment made be recovered from the appellant's salary in twelve equal monthly
installments."
2 5 . Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the recovery under the
impugned order/Recovery Notice is neither iniquitous nor arbitrary. The petitioner has
received public money by obtaining appointment on the basis of a forged TET
marksheet. Therefore, retention of the public money received by the petitioner as salary
is against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience. It is an
unjust retention of public money by the petitioner which amounts to unjust enrichment.
Therefore, the impugned recovery notice cannot be interfered under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
26. Thus, for all the reasons aforestated, we do not find any good reason to invoke on
the facts of the present case, the extraordinary, discretionary and equitable jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
27. For all the reasons aforestated, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall
be no order as to costs.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

14-02-2022 (Page 11 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University