Service Law | Employment Secured via Unrecognized Certificate Void Ab Initio; 6 Years of Service Creates No Equity: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Sublato fundamento cadit opus—when the foundation is removed, the structure falls. When employment itself has been secured by playing fraud on the hiring authority, the delay in discovery of the charade cannot be used as a defence against adverse consequences.”— In a seminal ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, comprising Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by employees of the Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (DHBVN), upholding their termination from service after it was discovered that their ITI certificates were issued by an unrecognized institution.

The Dispute: ‘Teaching Shops’ and Delayed Discovery

The controversy arose from a recruitment process initiated by DHBVN in 2008 for the post of Assistant Lineman (ALM). The essential eligibility criteria required candidates to possess a Matriculation certificate and a two-year ITI certificate in Electrician/Wireman trade from an institute "recognized by the State Government." The petitioners were appointed in 2010, confirmed in service, and some were even promoted to the post of Lineman.

However, nearly six years later, in 2016, the Corporation discovered that the certificates submitted by the petitioners were issued by the "National Industrial Training Institute (NITI), Rewari." Upon verification with the Haryana Industrial Training Directorate, it was revealed that NITI, Rewari was not a recognized institution. Consequently, the services of the petitioners were terminated, prompting them to approach the High Court.

Petitioners’ Plea: Confirmed Service and Lack of Intent

The petitioners argued that they were confirmed employees and could not be dismissed without a proper disciplinary inquiry as mandated by the DHBVN Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 2016. They contended that they had no means of knowing the institute was unrecognized at the time of admission and had served the department with an impeccable record for over six years. They pleaded that terminating them at such a belated stage was arbitrary and caused irreparable loss, relying on the principle that once an authority exercises its power to examine eligibility, it cannot retrospectively declare a candidate ineligible.

Judicial Analysis: Fraud Vitiates Solemn Acts

Justice Brar rejected the petitioners' contentions, grounding the verdict in the legal maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria (no man can take advantage of his own wrong). The Court held that since the employment was secured on the basis of a certificate that did not meet the mandatory requirement of state recognition, the appointment was void ab initio.

The Bench relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P. (2012), observing that fraudulently obtained orders of appointment create no equity in favor of the employee, regardless of the length of service rendered. The Court clarified that the requirement was not just possessing a certificate, but possessing one from a "recognized" institute. Since the State Government had not recognized NITI, Rewari, the Court could not step in to grant validity to such qualifications.

Strict Liability on Candidates: "Ignorance is Not Bliss"

Addressing the petitioners' plea of innocence regarding the status of the institute, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in National Council for Teacher Education vs. Venus Public Education Society (2013). The Bench observed that candidates seeking public employment are expected to be "Argus-eyed" and vigilant. They cannot simply claim they were duped by the institution. The Court remarked that allowing such an approach would amount to legitimizing a wrongful act merely because it went undetected for a few years. The law does not countenance the plea that the students were unaware of the institute's lack of recognition.

Court Pulls Up State and Corporation: "Waking Up After 6 Years"

While dismissing the petitions, the Court took a stern view of the systemic failures that led to this litigation. Justice Brar criticized the State of Haryana for allowing "teaching shops" like NITI, Rewari to function and dupe gullible students. The Court impleaded the Chief Secretary of Haryana, directing the State to file an affidavit explaining why criminal and civil action should not be initiated against the management of such bogus institutions and whether land granted to them should be reclaimed.

Simultaneously, the Court reprimanded DHBVN for its laxity in verifying documents, noting that the Corporation "let time slip by for 6 years and then woke up to throw the petitioner out of job." The Court observed that had the scrutiny been timely, the petitioners would have been denied appointment at the threshold, saving years of litigation and wasted tenure.

The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners had no legal right to hold the post without the requisite recognized qualification. However, to prevent recurrence, the Court issued a mandamus directing the Managing Director of DHBVN to formulate guidelines ensuring that the verification of credentials for all new recruits is completed within six months of their recruitment. The Court emphasized that public employment is scarce and sacrosanct, and hiring ineligible candidates deprives deserving aspirants of their legitimate rights.

Date of Decision: November 29, 2025