Recognition of qualifications on appointment cannot be challenged after 30 years unless fraud is alleged: High Court of MP

Background

By an order dated December 20, 2023 passed by the Additional District Collector Balaghat, an inquiry was initiated into the allegedly forged disability certificate issued by Dharamdas Bhalekar when he joined his service in 1993. The inquiry was initiated on the basis of a complaint suggesting that when appointment, the petitioner had a temporary disability of only 15% and not the required permanent disability of at least 40% under the Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation of Persons with Disabilities Act 1995. The petitioner challenged the inquiry.

Arguments

First, the petitioner argued that the state authorities could not examine a certificate issued 30 years ago, especially when he had completed 80% of his service and was approaching retirement. Secondly, he contended that the investigation was maliciously motivated because he had filed multiple complaints against respondent No. 6, an Assistant Commissioner in the Department, who was facing prosecution on the petitioner’s complaints. He further argued that the complainant Dharmendra Lilhare (Respondent No. 7) did not exist and the complaints were anonymous and were orchestrated by the Respondent No. 6.

The state vehemently opposed the petition, arguing that if the nomination was obtained through fraud and forged certificates, the passage of time was irrelevant. They contended that any malice on the part of the applicant was irrelevant if the appointment itself was improperly made. The state relied on the established legal principle that fraud perverts everything.

The Court’s reasoning

First, in examining the contents of the complaint, the court noted that it did not allege that the certificate was forged or manufactured, but rather found that it showed only a 15% temporary disability. The court emphasized the fundamental difference between accepting an unacceptable certificate and proceedings regarding a forged certificate. The court noted that the applicant had not argued that he did not have even the 15% temporary disability mentioned in the certificate, nor did he claim that the certificate was never issued. These omissions were significant because they did not indicate clear allegations of fraud or forgery.

The State appointed petitioner in 1993 “with open eyes” with full knowledge of the 15% temporary disability award. The court noted that this was not a case of concealing or misleading facts, but of an omission. Moreover, the court cited several judgments of the Supreme Court, including: Shri Krishan vs. Kurukshetra University (AIR 1976 SC 376) i Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal (2009) 1 SCC 610 wherein it was laid down that admissions, though illegal, but not based on concealment or misrepresentation, should not be withheld after a lapse of a considerable period of time.

Additionally, the court also specifically referred to: Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2013) 14 SCC 494 wherein it was held that errors not attributable to the appointees and cases not involving fraud or misrepresentation should not result in termination of contract after long period of employment. The court thus said that the authorities cannot suddenly question the acceptance of the qualifications by their predecessors after 30 years because “established matters cannot be allowed to be shaken in this way in one fell swoop.” However, recognizing the need to balance various interests, the court allowed explanatory proceedings, but limited its scope only to examining whether the disability certificate was actually issued by the competent authority. The petition was therefore allowed in part, with the specific proviso that if the certificate is found to be valid, no adverse action can be taken merely because the degree of disability was deemed unacceptable at the time of appointment.

Date: October 25, 2024

Quote: 2024:MPHC-JBP:54010