Ineligibility At Initial Stage Vitiates Appointment To Public Post; Higher Standard Of Scrutiny Required In Uniformed Services: Supreme Court
The Court held that eligibility conditions for public employment, particularly in uniformed services, are foundational and any appointment made in violation thereof cannot be sustained once ineligibility is established.
The Supreme Court has held that appointments to public posts, particularly in uniformed services, must be subjected to a higher standard of scrutiny, and any appointment made despite a lack of eligibility cannot be sustained once such ineligibility comes to light.
The Court was hearing civil appeals challenging the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which had upheld the order of the Services Tribunal directing reinstatement of a constable despite findings of ineligibility.
A Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice N.V. Anjaria, while setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Services Tribunal, observed: “Lack of eligibility goes to the root of the matter and appointment, wrongly made, cannot be sustained once the factum of ineligibility, on the relevant date, comes to light.”
The Bench further added that “Any appointment to any public post and more so, in uniformed services has to be examined with a greater sense of responsibility. The scrutiny expected from the High Court as also the Services Tribunal is of a much higher level.”
Advocate Ruchira Goel appeared for the appellants, while Advocate Akshit Pradhan and others appeared for the respondent.
Background
The case arose out of recruitment to the post of Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police, conducted through multiple Recruitment Boards. The respondent was selected and appointed pursuant to the said process.
Subsequently, complaints were received alleging irregularities in the recruitment process, following which an inquiry was initiated. Separately, directions were issued for medical re-examination of certain candidates. Upon such re-examination, the respondent was found medically unfit on account of a “knock knee deformity,” and his appointment was cancelled.
The respondent challenged the cancellation, leading to directions for re-examination by a fresh Medical Board. The second medical examination also found the respondent unfit, and consequently, his non-appointment continued.
Thereafter, in the backdrop of litigation concerning the mass cancellation of recruitments, certain candidates were provisionally reinstated. Claiming parity with such candidates, the respondent sought and obtained provisional reinstatement.
Subsequently, upon discovery of the respondent’s medical unfitness and alleged non-disclosure thereof, disciplinary proceedings were initiated, culminating in termination of service. The termination was upheld in appeal and revision.
However, the Services Tribunal interfered with the termination and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits, which was affirmed by the High Court.
Court’s Observation
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the sequence of events and emphasised that medical fitness was a foundational eligibility condition for appointment to the post of Constable.
It was observed that the respondent had been found medically unfit on two occasions and that such ineligibility directly impacted his entitlement to appointment. The Court held that eligibility conditions are not procedural but go to the root of the matter.
The Court further examined the conduct of the respondent in seeking reinstatement by claiming parity with other candidates. It found that the respondent had not disclosed his medical condition while seeking such consideration, despite being aware that his earlier appointment had been cancelled on that very ground.
The Court observed that a candidate seeking appointment or reconsideration must disclose all material facts, including medical fitness, and failure to do so amounts to suppression of material facts.
It held: “A person claiming parity or applying for consideration of his case for appointment has to clearly disclose and spell out all material factors, including medical fitness.”
The Court characterised the conduct of the respondent as deliberate suppression, noting that such non-disclosure was aimed at securing an appointment despite ineligibility.
The Court also examined the role of the authorities and observed that due diligence was not exercised while granting provisional reinstatement, particularly in verifying eligibility conditions.
It noted: “The said officer was duty-bound to verify all aspects of eligibility before acceding to the request of the Respondent.”
The Court further held that the Services Tribunal and the High Court erred in focusing on technical aspects of the disciplinary proceedings while ignoring the fundamental issue of eligibility. It was observed that the matter was not merely a service dispute but arose from a recruitment process affected by irregularities.
Rejecting the reasoning of the Tribunal, the Court observed that once it is established that a candidate did not fulfil the basic eligibility criteria, no equitable considerations or technical distinctions could sustain the appointment.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the respondent was not eligible for appointment to the post of Constable on account of medical unfitness and that such ineligibility vitiated the appointment.
Accordingly, the judgments of the High Court and the Services Tribunal were set aside, and the termination of the respondent from service was restored.
The Court directed that amounts already paid for the period during which the respondent had worked shall not be recovered, and any unpaid dues for actual service shall be paid within four weeks.
Cause Title: State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Malik (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 394)
Appearances
Appellants: Advocates Ruchira Goel; Veera Mahuli; Ritika Rao; Sharanya; Rishika Rishab
Respondent: Advocates Akshit Pradhan; Utkarsh Malviya