Non-Disclosure Of Medical Deformity While Seeking Re-Appointment Amounts To Deliberate Suppression, Termination Restored: Supreme Court

"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." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated April 20, 2026, held that a candidate’s failure to disclose a known medical disqualification while seeking reinstatement amounts to a deliberate suppression of material facts.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed that "such act is nothing short of deliberate suppression" which disentitles a person from being considered for the post of a Police Constable. The Court set aside the concurrent findings of the Services Tribunal and the Allahabad High Court, which had previously protected the respondent’s service.

The case involved a Police Constable whose initial appointment in 2005 was cancelled in 2007 after two successive medical boards found him unfit due to a 'knock knee deformity.' In 2013, the respondent sought reinstatement by claiming parity with other provisionally reinstated candidates but failed to disclose his medical unfitness to the Superintendent of Police. Upon discovering this suppression, the authorities initiated disciplinary proceedings and terminated his services, a decision that was challenged through several layers of the judiciary before reaching the apex court.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the non-disclosure of a medical deformity during a reinstatement process constitutes a deliberate suppression warranting termination. The Court also examined whether the principle of negative equality could be invoked to claim parity with other candidates whose own appointments were found to be irregular or fraudulent.

Fraud Unravels The Foundation Of Appointment

The Supreme Court emphasized the settled legal principle that fraud and misrepresentation vitiate the entire recruitment process. The bench noted that the respondent was fully aware of his medical disqualification, having had his appointment cancelled twice on the same ground previously. By representing himself as eligible for reinstatement without mentioning the 'knock knee' condition, the respondent engaged in conduct falling within the realm of suppressio veri (suppression of truth) and suggestio falsi (suggestion of falsehood).

No Concept Of Negative Equality Under Article 14

"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 rejected the respondent's plea for parity with another candidate, Nitin Kumar Upadhyay, observing that the latter’s appointment was also tainted by the non-disclosure of a medical condition. Citing precedents like Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh, the bench reiterated that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envision negative equality. If an administrative authority has committed an illegality by appointing one ineligible person, another ineligible person cannot claim a right to the same illegality.

Censure Of Senior Officers For Lack Of Due Diligence

The bench expressed deep concern over the conduct of the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun District, who had acceded to the reinstatement request without verifying eligibility. The Court noted that such lack of sensitivity and responsibility by senior officers damages the credibility of the recruitment system. The bench warned the State authorities to set their house in order regarding public recruitments to ensure that eligible candidates are not ousted by those who do not meet the criteria.

"The said officer was duty-bound to verify all aspects of eligibility before acceding to the request of the Respondent. This appears to have been totally overlooked by him."

Court Rejects Hyper-Technical Approach To Disciplinary Charges

The Services Tribunal and the High Court had interfered with the termination on the technical ground that the chargesheet erroneously mentioned 'colour blindness' instead of 'knock knee.' The Supreme Court dismissed this approach as being contrary to the larger public interest. The bench questioned whether a person with medical deformity ‘A’ should be allowed to remain in a uniformed service simply because the disciplinary notice mistakenly mentioned deformity ‘B’. The bench held that since the underlying ineligibility was proven, the technical error in the charge description was insignificant.

Final Directions and Reconsideration of Tainted Parity

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and restored the termination of the respondent, effectively setting aside the judgments of the Services Tribunal and the Allahabad High Court. In balancing the equities, the Court directed that no recovery shall be made for the period the respondent actually worked. However, it also directed the State to reconsider the case of Nitin Kumar Upadhyay, who reportedly remains in service despite suffering from colour blindness, to ensure that the prescribed medical eligibility criteria are strictly followed across the board.

The Court concluded by stating that the scrutiny expected from the High Court and Tribunals in matters of uniformed services must be of a higher level. It emphasized that once the factum of ineligibility on the relevant date comes to light, a wrongly made appointment cannot be sustained. Any unpaid dues for the period of actual service are to be cleared within four weeks, failing which they shall carry an interest rate of 6% per annum.

Date of Decision: 20 April 2026