'Public Employment Opportunities Are Scarce, Recruitment Must Be Sacrosanct': P&H High Court Voids Appointment Based On Forged Docs

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that recruitment in public employment must remain sacrosanct, declaring that an appointment obtained on the basis of forged documents is “void ab initio”.

10 years after being appointed as Assistant Lineman, the authorities found that documents submitted were forged.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, “Public employment opportunities are both rare and highly coveted. Such employees represent the State at all levels, as such it is carries with itself the assurance of stability and dignity. However, given its scarce nature, every such opportunity assumes great significance for aspirants who pursue it with commendable dedication and hope. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to ensure that the recruitment process remains sacrosanct, free from evils of arbitrariness and laxity.”

It further added that, the constitutional values of equality and justice must be clearly reflected in the approach adopted by the concerned State instrumentalities in conducting their recruitment process as any instances of negligence would contribute towards eroding public trust and undermining the integrity of the system itself.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed seeking direction the Haryana Government authorities to allow the petitioner to join duty.

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Lineman in 2012, however some information was supplied to the respondent by an RTI activist in 2022, claiming that the qualifications of various Assistant Linemen including petitioner were improper.

Hence, the certificate of the petitioner as well as some other employees were again sent for verification to Director, Government

Industrial Training Institute, Lucknow. Consequently, the Principal of the concerned ITI, submitted that the record of the certificate issued to the petitioner against Roll No.065718 is not available as it was not issued by the institute.

Thereafter, the petitioner received a show cause notice from the office of respondent on the ground of submitted fake certificates at the time of appointment.

The petitioner submitted a reply denying the allegations, however, his services were terminated in 2023.

After hearing the submissions, the Court referred to the legal maxims- nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria which can be translated to- no man can take advantage of his own wrong, and sublato fundamento cadit opus which translates to- when the foundation is removed, the structure falls.

“Obtaining an appointment or approval on the basis of forged documents amounts to misrepresentation,” it added.

The Court 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.

It noter that, settled law forbids such employees from claiming any subsequent benefits that arise by virtue of employment as no equity or estoppels would operate in his favour.

Fix Responsibility Of Employee In Charge For Negligence In Verifying Documents In Time

While noting that the petitioner's documents were not verified diligently during his probation period by the authorities, the Court opiner, “Clearly, it was due to the laxity displayed by the concerned employee that the appointment of the petitioner went through in spite of his lack of requisite qualifications, thereby denying the rightful candidate the opportunity of public employment.”

It highlighted that the fraud indulged in by the petitioner came to light after he had spent 10 years in service of the respondent-Nigam and received all monetary benefits arising therefrom, sponsored by the taxpayer.

Hence the Court directed the Managing Director of the Nigam 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.

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Bhim Sain Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl.A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate for the respondents-DHBVNL.

Title:  Kuldeep v. State of Haryana and others

Click here to read order