Appointment Secured Through Fake Disability Certificates In Priority Quota Is Void Ab Initio: Madras High Court Orders Enquiry

The Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging disciplinary proceedings, show-cause notices, enquiry reports and termination orders passed against employees appointed in various Town Panchayats and Municipalities after their names were sponsored by the District Employment Exchange under the physically disabled priority category.

A Bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi, while holding that such appointments caused prejudice not only to the Government but also to genuine persons with disabilities and other priority-category candidates, observed:

“Therefore, an appointment obtained by practising fraud upon the public exchequer is void ab initio. The persons with disabilities are treated as a priority category as the State has an obligation to facilitate the advancement of persons with disabilities. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any equity or legal right over the posts reserved for persons with physical disabilities, when they are not physically disabled persons. By obtaining public employment in the priority quota meant for physically disabled persons through fake disability identity cards and certificates and continuing in service for around eight years, the petitioners have committed fraud not only upon the Government, but also upon disabled persons and persons belonging to other priority categories who were deprived of their lawful employment opportunities.”

Advocate V. Vijay Shankar appeared for the petitioners, while Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General, and S. Sivasubramanian, Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Civil Side), appeared for the Government.

Background

The petitioners were recruited in temporary posts such as Sanitary Workers, Overhead Tank Operators, Overhead Tank Watchmen, Electricians and Junior Assistants in Town Panchayats and Municipalities in Tirunelveli District. Their recruitment was made through the District Employment Exchange, which forwarded their names as physically disabled candidates under the priority quota.

The controversy began after a Civil Assistant Surgeon complained that a fake National Disability Card had been issued using his forged signature and hospital seal. An FIR was registered, and the investigation was later transferred to CB-CID, Tirunelveli.

The Court recorded that 103 persons had been appointed under the physically disabled priority category across 28 Town Panchayats and Municipalities, but medical examination found that only 25 were actually physically disabled. The disciplinary authorities then initiated proceedings against the petitioners, alleging that they had obtained appointments against posts meant for physically disabled persons by furnishing fake disability certificates through the Employment Exchange.

The petitioners argued that their appointment orders did not specifically mention that they were appointed under the physically disabled priority quota, that they had not committed fraud, and that the disciplinary proceedings suffered from delay and violation of natural justice.

Court’s Observations

The Court rejected the contention that the nature of appointment could be decided only from the wording of the appointment orders. It held that the entire recruitment process had to be examined, including the requisition made by the appointing authority, the category under which candidates were sponsored, and the documents forwarded with their names.

The Court observed: “This Court is not inclined to accede this contention, inasmuch as the nature of an appointment cannot be determined solely from the wording employed in the appointment order. The Court is entitled to examine the entire recruitment process commencing from the requisition made by the appointing authority, the category under which candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the records accompanying such sponsorship and the circumstances culminating in the appointment. It is only by examining the recruitment process as a whole that the true character of the appointment can be ascertained.”

The Court noted suspicious factors, including that the Employment Exchange had forwarded National Disability Identity Cards and certificates with the petitioners’ photographs and signatures, though later medical examination found that they were not physically disabled.

The Court explained that the priority-category system was meant to provide targeted affirmative action to marginalised or disadvantaged groups. It noted that the Government Orders recognised several priority categories, but the Employment Exchange had sponsored only candidates shown as persons with disabilities.

The Court stated: “It is also relevant to note that the Government introduced 3% reservations in State Public Services for physically disabled persons vide G.O.Ms.No.602, Social Welfare Department, dated 14.09.1981 with the object of ensuring their welfare and social advancement. However, it was found that the petitioners were not physically disabled but were accommodated under the priority posts meant for the physically disabled persons and by misusing the reservation provided for the benefit of persons who are actually physically disabled.”

The Court added that the petitioners had not only taken posts meant for persons with disabilities, but also deprived other priority groups of employment opportunities.

The Court relied on Union of India v. Prohlad Gupta (2024), where the Supreme Court reiterated that fraud vitiates all proceedings and that a person securing public employment by fraud cannot retain such appointment.

The Court noted that most petitioners had been arrayed as accused in the final report filed by CB-CID, but clarified that criminal liability was not the issue before it.

The Court observed: “This Court is conscious in not recording any finding as to whether the petitioners themselves forged or fabricated the disability identity cards or disability certificates. That issue forms part of the pending criminal proceedings. However, the cumulative effect of the materials discussed above, namely, the requisitions made under the priority category, the sponsorship of the petitioners by the Employment Exchange as physically disabled candidates, the disability documents forwarded along with their candidature, the subsequent medical examination, the absence of any satisfactory explanation regarding those documents and the procedural irregularities noticed in the recruitment process, furnish sufficient objective material for the disciplinary authorities to proceed against the petitioners.”

It therefore declined to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings and termination orders in most of the writ petitions.

The Court, however, allowed one writ petition where a later Medical Board report had found that the employee had 40% permanent disability in the left hand and wrist and could be included in the disability quota.

The Court noted that the subsequent charge memo and enquiry report relied only on the earlier medical report stating that there was no clinical evidence of physical disability, while failing to consider the later report.

The Court found that the irregularities appeared to have originated primarily at the stage of sponsorship by the District Employment Exchange.

The Court remarked: “These circumstances disclose either a complete failure in the process of verification or a deeper systemic irregularity in the functioning of the Employment Exchange. In either event, the matter raises serious concerns touching upon the integrity and transparency of public recruitment. The Employment Exchanges are entrusted with the registration of job seekers, sponsorship of eligible candidates against notified vacancies and maintenance of employment records. Thousands of aspiring candidates depend upon the fairness and impartiality of this mechanism for access to public employment. Any manipulation or failure in this process not only prejudices deserving candidates but also erodes public confidence in the fairness of recruitment to public service.”

The Court also noted the CB-CID status report stating that similar appointments in other Municipalities on the basis of disability certificates were under investigation.

Conclusion

The Court dismissed most writ petitions challenging termination and disciplinary action. It allowed one writ petition by setting aside the show-cause notice and enquiry report, where the latter Medical Board report was ignored.

The Court suo motu impleaded the Secretary to the Government, Labour Welfare and Skill Development Department, Chennai, and directed the Secretary to constitute a committee of senior officers to conduct a comprehensive enquiry into how candidates were sponsored by the District Employment Exchange under the priority category.

The Court directed that the committee examine how disability identity cards and certificates were accepted and forwarded by the Employment Exchange, why the prescribed procedure and order of priority were not followed, which officials were responsible for any lapse, negligence, misconduct or collusion, and whether similar irregularities occurred in other recruitments through the Employment Exchange.

The Court further directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Organised Crime Unit, CB-CID, Tirunelveli, to examine the role of District Employment Exchange officials, if any, and said the investigation should not remain confined to the beneficiaries alone but should also cover the source of disability documents, departure from priority rules and the role of officials concerned.

The Secretary was also directed to undertake a comprehensive review of the Employment Exchange sponsorship mechanism and put in place administrative and supervisory safeguards to ensure proper verification, compliance with Government Orders and accountability.

Cause Title: G. Premkumar v. The Executive Officer

Appearances

Petitioners: V. Vijay Shankar; R. Prem Narayanan; G. Karthick for Roy & Roy Associates; D. Nallathambi; S. Chellapandian; M. Saravanakumar; S. Palanivelayutham; K. K. Udhayakumar

Respondents: Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General, with G. V. Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader; C. Venkatesh Kumar, Special Government Pleader; S. Sivasubramanian, Counsel for State of Tamil Nadu (Civil Side); P. Srinivas; S. Packiamuthu; K. P. Baduras Zaman, Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment