State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Malik
Background
The respondent was selected as a Police Constable in Uttar Pradesh in 2005, but was later found medically unfit due to a "knock knee deformity" by two separate Medical Boards, leading to cancellation of his appointment in 2007. His termination was also linked to a wider scandal in which 42 of 51 recruitment boards had large-scale irregularities. Years later, the State Public Services Tribunal and then the Allahabad High Court set aside his termination and ordered his reinstatement with consequential benefits (though not back wages). The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court against this reinstatement.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal and High Court had wrongly focused on a technical distinction in the disciplinary charge (colour blindness vs. knock knee) instead of confronting the core fact that the respondent was genuinely medically unfit and thus never validly eligible for appointment. The Court held that ineligibility on the relevant date goes to the root of the matter, and an appointment made despite it cannot be sustained once that ineligibility comes to light, regardless of procedural laxity by the authorities in reinstating him earlier. It set aside the Tribunal's and High Court's judgments and restored the termination, while balancing equities by directing that any salary already paid for the period actually worked need not be recovered, and any unpaid dues be settled with interest. The Court also directed reconsideration of a similarly situated candidate's case on merits, and criticised the casual manner in which senior police officials had reinstated the respondent without verifying eligibility.
Lesson Learnt
A government appointment obtained or continued despite fundamental ineligibility (such as failing a mandatory medical standard) cannot be protected merely because of a technical or semantic distinction between the grounds cited in disciplinary proceedings: genuine ineligibility on the relevant date is fatal to the appointment regardless of later procedural developments.