Acceptance of qualifications at time of appointment cannot be questioned after 30 years unless charge of fraud: Parliamentary Supreme Court

Background

An order dated 20/12/2023 issued by the Additional Collector of Balaghat District initiated an inquiry into the alleged forged disability certificate submitted by Dharamdas Bhalekar at the time of his joining the service in 1993. The investigation was initiated on the basis of a complaint indicating that the claimant had only a 15% temporary disability at the time of appointment, not the mandatory permanent disability of at least 40% under the Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Human Participation Act 1995 with disabilities. The applicant appealed the request.

Arguments

First, the claimant argued that the government authorities could not investigate a certificate submitted 30 years ago, especially when he had completed 80% of his service and was approaching retirement. Secondly, he contended that the request was motivated by mala fide as he had lodged numerous complaints against Respondent No. 6, the Assistant Commissioner of the Department, who had been prosecuted on the complainant’s complaints. He further alleged that the complainant, Dharmendra Lilhare (Respondent No. 7), did not exist and the complaints were anonymous, organized by Respondent No. 6.

The State strongly opposed the petition, arguing that if the appointment was obtained through fraud and forged certificates, time is irrelevant. They argued that any malice on the part of the complainant is irrelevant if the appointment itself was made improperly. The State relied on the established legal principle that fraud is void.

Reasoning of the court

First, examining the content of the complaint, the court noted that it does not claim that the certificate was forged or manufactured, but on the contrary, it claims that it states only 15% temporary disability. The court emphasized the fundamental difference between accepting an unacceptable certificate and working with a forged certificate. The court noted that the complainant did not allege that the claimant did not even have the 15% temporary disability stated in the certificate and did not allege that the certificate was never issued. These omissions were material because they pointed to the absence of overt allegations of fraud or forgery.

The state authorities appointed the plaintiff in 1993 “with open eyes”, knowing the certificate of 15% temporary disability. The court noted that the matter was not concealment or distortion of facts, but oversight. Next, the court cited several decisions of the Supreme Court, including Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University (AIR 1976 SC 376) and Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal (2009) 1 SCC 610 which held that admissions, though illegal, but not based on concealment or misrepresentation, should not be set aside after a long time.

In addition, the court also specifically relied on Vikas Pratap Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2013) 14 SCC 494 which held that non-designated errors and cases without fraud or misrepresentation should not lead to termination of employment after a long period of service. Thus, the court concluded that the authorities could not suddenly call into question the acceptance of the qualifications of their predecessors 30 years later, because “settled matters cannot be allowed to be so unsettled overnight.” However, recognizing the need to balance the various interests, the court allowed the investigation, but limited its scope strictly to verifying whether the certificate of incapacity for work had actually been issued by the relevant authority. Thus, the petition was allowed in part with a specific direction that if the certificate is found to be properly issued, no adverse action can be taken merely because the percentage of disability was found to be unacceptable at the time of appointment.

Date: October 25, 2024

Quote: 2024:MPHC-JBP:54010