Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by an appointed Assistant Lineman, seeking directions for the respondents to allow him to re-join duty after he was terminated, a Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar J. held that an appointment secured by employing fraudulent means renders the recruitment void ab initio and dismissed the petition.
Further, the Court stated that public employment opportunities are both rare and highly coveted and it is of the utmost importance to ensure that the recruitment process remains sacrosanct, free from evils of arbitrariness and laxity.
Background
In the present case, the Haryana Staff Selection Commission advertised various posts pursuant to which the petitioner was selected for the post of Assistant Lineman. After getting medically examined, he joined the said post in October 2012.
An RTI activist supplied some information to the respondent claiming that the qualifications of various Assistant Linemen were improper. This resulted in verification of certificates of the employees concerned by the Director, Government Industrial Training Institute, Lucknow. In February 2023, when the Principal of Industrial Training Institute concerned arrived, it stated that the record of the certificate issued to the petitioner was not available as it was not issued by the institute.
The petitioner received a show cause notice in March 2023 to which he replied negating the allegations of submitting fake certificates at the time of appointment. However, he was terminated from the services.
The petitioner contended that he passed the prescribed test in the trade of Electrician from Government Industrial Training Institute, Kanpur, U.P., pursuant to which he was issued a National Trade Certificate by the National Council for Vocational Training. He further contended that he had cleared the probation period of 2 years and had been in service for the last 10 years. He also contended that his termination was in contravention of Clause 7 of the Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 2006 (Regulations 2006’) and Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
On the other hand, the respondent contended that the appointment of the petitioner was vitiated by fraud as he joined the service based on forged and fabricated documents.
Analysis and Decision
Referring to the legal maxims nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria and sublato fundamento cadit opus, the Court held that obtaining an appointment or approval based on forged documents amounts to misrepresentation. The Court further opined that an appointment secured by employing fraudulent means renders such recruitment void ab initio and therefore, such appointment would not confer any legal rights or entitlements on the petitioner.
The Court stated that the settled law forbade such employees from claiming any subsequent benefits that arise by virtue of employment as no equity or estoppels would operate in his/her favour. Further, the Court observed that the Regulations 2006 provided for the procedure that ought to be adopted in the event of any misconduct during service and since the petitioner obtained employment on the basis of a forged and fabricated certificate, he could not take shelter of the prescribed procedure to escape accountability as fraud vitiated all.
The Court stated that public employment opportunities are both rare and highly coveted and the employees represent the State at all levels, it carries with it the assurance of stability and dignity. Looking at its scarce nature, the Court opined that such opportunity assumes great significance for aspirants who pursue it with commendable dedication and hope, which is why it is of the utmost importance to ensure that the recruitment process remains sacrosanct, free from evils of arbitrariness and laxity. Further, the Court stated that the approach adopted by the State instrumentalities concerned in conducting the recruitment process must be just and equality based as any instances of negligence would contribute towards eroding public trust and undermining the integrity of the system itself.
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition and held that the certificate of the petitioner was not verified diligently during his probation period by the respondent and it was due to the evident laxity that the appointment of the petitioner went through despite his lack of requisite qualifications which denied the rightful candidate the opportunity of public employment.
The Court directed the Managing Director of the respondent to fix responsibility of the employee in-charge of the verification process, with respect to the petitioner and other similarly situated employees and take appropriate disciplinary action against them for the negligence displayed therein. The Court further ordered the filing of compliance report with the Registry within 8 weeks.
[Kuldeep v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 7001, decided on 3-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Bhim Sain Mittal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Piyush Khanna, Addl. A.G., Haryana and Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
