Fraud in Medical Disclosure Vitiates Public Appointment Even After Reinstatement | Service Dues with 6% Interest Mandated : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that fraud in securing a public appointment, even after provisional reinstatement, invalidates the entire service tenure. In a significant ruling, the Court held that deliberate suppression of disqualifying medical conditions nullifies any claim to continuity of service, regardless of prior administrative actions.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The dispute centers on the termination of Ajay Kumar Malik, a candidate appointed as a Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police, whose appointment was cancelled in 2007 due to medical unfitness (knock knee deformity), later reinstated provisionally in 2013, and finally terminated in 2017 after disciplinary proceedings found he concealed his medical condition during reinstatement.

Key Facts

• The Respondent, Ajay Kumar Malik, was initially selected for the post of Constable in 2005 through a state-wide recruitment process conducted by 51 Recruitment Boards.
• On 01.09.2007, a medical examination found him unfit due to bilateral knock knee deformity, leading to cancellation of his appointment on 08.09.2007.
• In 2007, widespread irregularities were detected in the recruitment process, prompting the State to constitute a 4-Member Inquiry Committee.
• On 08.12.2008, the Allahabad High Court set aside the State’s en-masse cancellation of appointments from 42 Recruitment Boards.
• On 25.05.2009, the Supreme Court issued an interim order permitting provisional appointments of candidates affected by the cancellation, subject to final outcome of SLP (Civil) No.12586/2009.
• On 08.03.2013, the State withdrew the SLP, leaving the interim order as the operative directive.
• On 10.09.2013, Nitin Kumar Upadhyay, another candidate declared medically unfit (colour blindness), filed a writ petition seeking reinstatement without disclosing his medical condition.
• On 19.10.2013, six medically unfit candidates, including Upadhyay, were provisionally reinstated based on parity claims.
• On 28.10.2013, the Respondent sought reinstatement, claiming parity with Upadhyay and others, but did not disclose his knock knee deformity.
• On 09.12.2013, the Respondent was provisionally reinstated without any medical re-evaluation.
• On 19.12.2014, the State initiated disciplinary proceedings against all provisionally reinstated candidates found medically unfit.
• On 06.04.2015, a Preliminary Notice was issued to the Respondent alleging concealment of medical unfitness and misrepresentation of the Supreme Court’s interim order.
• On 28.05.2015, a Chargesheet was issued, alleging concealment of medical unfitness and misrepresentation.
• On 17.05.2017, the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun, terminated the Respondent’s services.
• On 23.10.2017, the Appellate Authority (Deputy Inspector General of Police) confirmed the termination.
• On 12.01.2018, the Revisional Authority (Additional Director General of Police, Kanpur Zone) refused to interfere.
• On 2018, the Respondent filed a Claim Petition before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow.
• On 11.02.2021, the Services Tribunal allowed the claim, holding no suppression or misrepresentation occurred.
• On 18.09.2023, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench) dismissed the State’s appeal.
• On 12.04.2024, the High Court dismissed the State’s review application.

Procedural History

• 08.09.2007: Appointment cancelled due to knock knee deformity
• 25.05.2009: Supreme Court issues interim order permitting provisional appointments subject to final decision in SLP No.12586/2009
• 08.03.2013: State withdraws SLP (Civil) No.12586/2009
• 10.09.2013: Nitin Kumar Upadhyay files Writ Petition seeking reinstatement without disclosing medical unfitness
• 19.10.2013: Six medically unfit candidates, including Upadhyay, provisionally reinstated
• 28.10.2013: Respondent seeks reinstatement claiming parity
• 09.12.2013: Respondent provisionally reinstated without medical verification
• 19.12.2014: Disciplinary proceedings initiated against provisionally reinstated candidates
• 06.04.2015: Preliminary Notice issued to Respondent
• 28.05.2015: Chargesheet issued
• 17.05.2017: Termination order by Superintendent of Police, Jalaun
• 23.10.2017: Appellate Authority confirms termination
• 12.01.2018: Revisional Authority refuses to interfere
• 2018: Claim Petition filed before State Public Services Tribunal
• 11.02.2021: Services Tribunal allows claim, reinstates service
• 18.09.2023: Allahabad High Court (Division Bench) dismisses State’s appeal
• 12.04.2024: High Court dismisses review application
• 2025: Special Leave Petitions filed before Supreme Court
• 20.04.2026: Supreme Court delivers judgment

The Parties' Positions

• Appellants (State of Uttar Pradesh and others): Argued that the Respondent’s appointment was procured through deliberate suppression of material facts (knock knee deformity), rendering it void ab initio. Cited Vishnu Vardhan v State of Uttar Pradesh and Chandigarh Administration v Jagjit Singh to assert that fraud unravels all and negative equality is not recognized.
• Respondent (Ajay Kumar Malik): Contended that the charges of concealment were unproven, as he disclosed his condition during reinstatement and was never formally notified of disqualification. Argued that the enquiry was vitiated for introducing new grounds not in the Show Cause Notice. Invoked Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and relied on Collector Singh v L.M.L. Ltd. and Nizam v State of Rajasthan to defend concurrent findings.

Relief Sought

The Appellants sought setting aside of the High Court’s judgment and restoration of the termination order. The Respondent sought continuation of service, payment of back wages, and restoration of all benefits.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether a public appointment, once reinstated after cancellation due to medical unfitness, can be lawfully terminated on the ground of concealment of that same medical condition during the reinstatement process, and whether such concealment constitutes fraud sufficient to vitiate the appointment.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

Learned counsel for the State argued that the Respondent’s reinstatement was obtained by suppressing a material fact - his known knock knee deformity - which had previously led to cancellation of his appointment. Citing Vishnu Vardhan v State of Uttar Pradesh, it was contended that fraud vitiates all legal acts, and no appointment can survive if obtained by misrepresentation. The State emphasized that the Supreme Court’s 2009 interim order was never intended to override medical eligibility criteria, and that the Respondent’s claim of parity with Nitin Kumar Upadhyay was fraudulent because Upadhyay himself had concealed his medical condition. The State further argued that the Services Tribunal and High Court erred in treating the termination as a procedural irregularity rather than a substantive fraud.

For the Respondent

Learned counsel for the Respondent countered that the charges of concealment were not substantiated, as the Respondent had disclosed his medical condition during reinstatement and was never formally advised that it disqualified him. He relied on M/s Associated Switch Gears v State of U.P. to argue that the enquiry officer exceeded jurisdiction by imposing punishment on a ground not mentioned in the Show Cause Notice. He also invoked Collector Singh v L.M.L. Ltd. to assert that the Supreme Court should not reappreciate evidence when concurrent findings exist. Further, he contended that the Respondent developed knock knees during service and thus qualified for protection under Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and that the State was estopped from terminating him after reinstating him with full knowledge.

The Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court conducted a meticulous review of the factual matrix and concluded that the Respondent’s reinstatement was procured by deliberate suppression. The Court observed that the Respondent was fully aware that his knock knee deformity had previously led to cancellation of his appointment, yet he failed to disclose it when seeking reinstatement on the basis of parity with others. The Court held that this constituted suppressio veri et suggestio falsi - concealment of truth and suggestion of falsehood.

"It is only thereafter, that the authorities would be obliged to consider the same in accordance with law. However, it is not in dispute that the Respondent never disclosed before the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun District, that he had knock knee. Pausing here, it was well within the Respondent’s knowledge that earlier his appointment was cancelled on this very ground. Unfortunately for the Respondent, we are of the opinion that such act is nothing short of deliberate suppression..."

The Court rejected the Respondent’s argument that the enquiry was vitiated for introducing new grounds, noting that the charge of concealment was clearly articulated in the Preliminary Notice and Chargesheet. The Court also dismissed the claim under the Persons with Disabilities Act, holding that the condition predated service and was known at the time of initial application.

The Court criticized the Services Tribunal and High Court for adopting a narrow, technical approach, ignoring the broader context of mass recruitment fraud and the public interest in maintaining integrity in uniformed services. It emphasized that eligibility criteria for police constables are non-negotiable and that any appointment made in violation of such criteria cannot be sustained, even if administrative lapses occurred.

While upholding the termination, the Court recognized the Respondent’s actual service from 2013 to 2017 and directed that he be paid all dues for that period, with interest if unpaid.

The Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgments of the Services Tribunal and the High Court. The termination of the Respondent from service is restored. However, the State shall pay all amounts due to the Respondent for the period of actual service (09.12.2013 to 17.05.2017) within four weeks from the date of judgment. Any unpaid amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum. The Appellants shall deposit Rs. 5,000 with the Supreme Court Bar Clerks Association Welfare Fund Trust within two weeks.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Fraud Vitiates Appointment Even After Reinstatement

• Practitioners must now treat any reinstatement based on parity claims as subject to full verification of eligibility criteria.
• Failure to disclose a previously known disqualification during reinstatement constitutes fraud, regardless of subsequent administrative inaction.
• Public employers are not estopped from terminating service if fraud is established, even after granting provisional appointment.

Concurrent Findings Are Not Absolute in Public Appointment Cases

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that while it generally respects concurrent findings, it will intervene where public interest, integrity of recruitment, or fraud is involved.
• Service Tribunals and High Courts must conduct a substantive review of eligibility, not merely procedural compliance.
• Technical distinctions (e.g., between colour blindness and knock knee) cannot override the core issue of material concealment.

Due Diligence Is Non-Negotiable in Public Recruitment

• Senior officers are under a legal and ethical duty to verify eligibility before reinstating candidates.
• Administrative lapses by the State do not cure fraud committed by the appointee.
• Future non-compliance may attract coercive orders from the Supreme Court.