2026 INSC 394 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEALS NOS. OF 2026

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS (CIVIL) NOS.11145-11146 OF 2025 ]

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. …APPELLANTS

A1: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,

THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

CIVIL SECRETARIAT, GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH

A2: DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

A3: ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

KANPUR ZONE

A4: SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, JALAUN

VERSUS

AJAY KUMAR MALIK …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

2

3. The instant appeals arise from the Final Order and Judgment

dated 18.09.2023 in Writ-A No.6974 of 2021 [2023:AHC:179750-DB]

and Order dated 12.04.2024 in Civil Misc. Review Application No.74 of

2024 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgments’)

passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’). By way of the

Impugned Judgments, the High Court has: (a) upheld the Judgment

dated 11.02.2021 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal,

Lucknow, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Services Tribunal’) in Claim

Petition No.515 of 2018 (Ajay Kumar Malik v State of U.P. and Ors.),

and; (b) dismissed the review application against the Judgment dated

18.09.2023. Through its Order supra, the Services Tribunal interfered

with the concurrent Orders of three authorities viz. Superintendent of

Police, Jalaun (Appellant No.4) dated 17.05.2017; the Appellate

Authority (Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jhansi Range, Jhansi)

dated 23.10.2017, and; Revisional Authority (Additional Director

General of Police, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur) [Appellant No.3] dated

12.01.2018. These three authorities had directed the termination from

service of the Respondent. The Services Tribunal also directed

reinstatement of the Respondent with all consequential benefits, except

back wages from termination till reinstatement.

3

FACTUAL BACKGROUND :

4. The story begins in 2005, when 51 Recruitment Boards of the

Appellant No.1-State of Uttar Pradesh conducted selections for the

posts of Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police, pursuant to which the

Respondent, inter alios, was selected for the said post. He was

subsequently posted in District Jalaun.

5. In view of the chequered and litigious history of the case at

hand, for the sake of convenience, subsequent events are noted below:

DATE EVENT

2007 Several complaints were received alleging large-

scale irregularities in the concerned selection

process(es) through which the Respondent and

others were selected. Pursuant to such complaints,

a 4-Member Inquiry Committee headed by Shailaja

Kant Mishra was constituted by Appellant No.1.

29.06.2007Dehors the above, separate complaints alleging

that medically unfit candidates had been recruited,

were received by the above-mentioned Committee.

This led the Director-General of Police to issue

directions for a Medical Board to be constituted.

01.09.2007Apropos medical re-test, another medical

examination of some candidates was held. Here,

the Respondent alongwith other recruits, was

found unfit. The Respondent was found to have a

‘knock knee deformity’ and thus declared unfit.

08.09.2007Hence, the Respondent’s appointment was

4

cancelled on the ground of being medically unfit.

2007 Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Appellants

cancelling their appointments, the Respondent,

along with others declared medically unfit

challenged their termination before the High Court,

through CMWP Nos.46331/2007 and 38199/2007,

the latter being the lead matter, titled Ravishankar

Yadav v State of UP.

23.01.2009Ravishankar Yadav (supra) was disposed of with

a direction to constitute a new Medical Board to,

again, test the medical fitness of the candidates,

with their cases to be reconsidered only if the

report by the new Medical Board is in favour of the

candidates.

27.01.2009The new Medical Board was constituted and 14

candidates were re-examined. Its report, once

more, found the Respondent medically unfit due to

‘presence of knock knee’.

Pursuant thereto, the Respondent and other

similarly-placed candidates were not re-appointed,

and the cancellations of their appointments

remained intact.

5.1While the aforesaid transpired, parallelly another series of

events occurred:

DATE EVENT

September,

2007

The 4-Member Inquiry Committee as constituted

supra, after its enquiry recommended en-masse

cancellation of recruitment conducted by 42 out of

the 51 Recruitment Boards of the Appellant-State.

As could be expected, such en-masse cancellation

came to be challenged by the aggrieved recruits

before the High Court by way of multiple writ

petitions, with the lead case Pawan Kumar & Ors.

v the State of UP, CMWP No.45645/2007.

5

08.12.2008 A learned Single Bench allowed the CMWP

No.45645/2007 and connected matters, setting

aside the orders cancelling the appointments en-

masse.

The Division Bench, where the State had filed

Special Appeals against the Order dated

08.12.2008, upheld the same and directed the

State to carry out the exercise of segregating the

‘tainted’ and ‘untainted’ candidates.

May, 2009 The State laid a challenge to the order of the

Division Bench in this Court through SLP (Civil)

No.12586/2009 - State of UP & Ors. v Pawan

Kumar & Ors. and connected cases.

25.05.2009 By an interim order, this Court directed that the

appointments may be made of the selected

candidates, but in the appointment orders, it shall

clearly be mentioned that the appointments were

provisional and would be subject to the decision in

SLP (Civil) No.12586/2009.

2011 Several Intervention Applications were filed by

candidates found medically unfit (referred to in the

first set of events in the table supra) in the said

SLP pending before this Court.

08.03.2013 The SLP (which became Civil Appeal

No.7152/2009) was withdrawn by the Appellant-

State. As such, the Intervention Applications filed

therein were not decided on merits.

5.2Post-withdrawal of Civil Appeal No.7152/2009, infra transpired:

DATE EVENT

10.09.2013Relying on the withdrawal of the Civil Appeal

above, one of the medically unfit candidates viz.

Nitin Kumar Upadhyay approached the High Court

through Writ-A No.48557/2013 seeking

reinstatement on the claim that similarly-situated

6

candidates, whose appointments were cancelled

‘by a general order’ were being reconsidered for

appointment and that since his appointment too

was cancelled by ‘a general order’, his case be

considered too.

The High Court allowed this Writ Petition and

directed the State to consider Nitin Kumar

Upadhyay’s case too, in case he fell within the

zone of consideration of the policy as applicable to

the similarly-situated candidates.

19.10.2013Pursuant thereto, 6 medically unfit candidates were

provisionally reinstated in service.

28.10.2013Claiming parity with these 6 candidates, the

Respondent also sought reinstatement.

09.12.2013The Respondent was provisionally reinstated.

5.3After provisional reinstatement, the final leg of events took

place, leading up to the present appeals:

DATE EVENT

19.12.2014On the claim that provisional appointments were

granted to medically unfit candidates, including the

Respondent, despite them having been found

medically unfit twice, the Appellant-State initiated

enquiry against all such candidates, including the

Respondent.

06.04.2015Pursuant to this enquiry, a Preliminary

Report/Notice was issued to the Respondent, on

the ground that he had obtained employment by

concealing the fact relating to his knock-knee

deformity, by presenting a misleading interpretation

of the interim order of provisional appointment by

this Court in the Civil Appeal described

hereinbefore.

28.05.2015Chargesheet was issued against the Respondent

7

17.05.2017Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and

charges having been proved, the Superintendent of

Police, Jalaun, through his Final Order terminated

the Respondent’s services.

23.10.2017The Respondent challenged the Final Order by

way of appeal before the Deputy Inspector General

of Police, Jhansi, the Appellate Authority, which

confirmed the termination.

12.01.2018Against these, the Respondent preferred a revision

before the Additional Director General of Police,

Kanpur Zone. The Revisional Authority refused to

interfere.

2018 The Respondent approached the Services Tribunal

at Indira Bhawan, Lucknow.

6. As stated supra, the Services Tribunal allowed the claim of the

Respondent, stating that no evidence existed on the record proving the

charges against the Respondent. It further opined that there appeared

to have been no misrepresentation of facts by the Respondent in his

application seeking reinstatement. The Appellant-State and its

instrumentalities, aggrieved by this order of the Services Tribunal,

moved the High Court, which dismissed the appeal. The review

thereagainst also having failed, the Appellants are before us.

APPELLANTS’ SUBMISSIONS :

7. The argument of learned counsel for the Appellants primarily

rested on one principle alone, that fraud unravels everything [Vishnu

8

Vardhan v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1505], and

since the very appointment of the Respondent was obtained seeking

parity with other candidates who themselves had obtained their

appointments through fraud, the appointment of the Respondent too

suffered from the same defect. It was pointed out that there is no

concept of negative equality under law [Chandigarh Administration v

Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 745 and Gursharan Singh v New Delhi

Municipal Committee, (1996) 2 SCC 459].

8. It was submitted that the Respondent was found medically unfit

twice and based on this, his appointment had been cancelled. Learned

counsel submitted that the cancellation of the Respondent’s

appointment was independently done before the en-masse cancellation

carried out pursuant to the suggestions of the 4-Member Inquiry

Committee. It was urged that the Respondent misinterpreted the interim

Order of this Court directing provisional appointment of candidates, by

wrongly claiming that he too was covered by the said Order.

9. Learned counsel submitted that the candidates with whom the

Respondent had sought parity, had themselves obtained their

appointments by misrepresenting to be beneficiaries of the order of

9

provisional appointment. When such appointment of similarly situated

and medically unfit candidates (in particular, one Nitin Kumar

Upadhyay) was vitiated, the Respondent’s appointment too, would

stand vitiated, on the same ground. It was urged that the appeals be

allowed.

RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS :

10.Au contraire, learned counsel for the sole Respondent,

countered the arguments of the State primarily on the ground that the

charge(s) on which the Respondent was terminated was ‘concealment

of his medical unfitness’ and not his ‘medical unfitness’ alone. Charges

alleged, of concealment and misrepresentation, both, as per learned

counsel for the Respondent stand unproved, as held by the Services

Tribunal and the High Court. It was submitted that the Respondent’s re-

appointment in 2013 was with the bona fide disclosure of his knock

knee deformity, and thus, there arises no occasion for concealment. It

was urged that the High Court had examined the issue arising in detail

and that this Court, under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, does

not normally re-examine evidence or disturb concurrent findings unless

it is a case of clear error or gross injustice [Collector Singh v L.M.L.

10

Ltd., Kanpur, (2015) 2 SCC 410 and Nizam v State of Rajasthan,

(2016) 1 SCC 550].

11.Pointing out the defects in the enquiry procedure, learned

counsel would submit that the enquiry stood vitiated as the Enquiry

Officer stepped beyond his jurisdiction in suggesting termination as

punishment. Further, on these lines, learned counsel submitted that the

orders of the Appellate and Revisional Authorities were non-speaking

and mechanical. Learned counsel placed reliance on M/s Associated

Switch Gears and Projects Ltd. v State of U.P., 2024:AHC:12780

[which relied on/followed Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v Toyo

Engineering Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 592; Commissioner of Central

Excise, Bhubaneswar v Champdany Industries Ltd., (2009) 9 SCC

466; Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v Shital

International, (2011) 1 SCC 109; Ramlala v State of U.P., 2023 SCC

OnLine All 2479, and; Jitendra Kumar v State of U.P., 2023 SCC

OnLine All 2837] to contend that the authorities cannot travel beyond

the Show Cause Notice and it is not allowed to inflict punishment on a

ground which does not form part of the Show Cause Notice. It was

urged that the termination was premised on a ground not laid in the

11

Show Cause Notice, and the Respondent was deprived of the right to

defend himself thereon.

12.The second submission that learned counsel for the Respondent

made is that at the time of initial appointment, i.e., on 26.06.2005, the

Respondent was medically fit, had no knock knee deformity, and it was

only subsequently, during the course of service that he developed

knock knees, which was observed through the examination, which

ultimately led to his first termination in 2007. Since he developed this

deficiency during service, learned counsel submitted that the

Respondent is entitled to protection under Section 47(1) of the Persons

with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full

Participation) Act, 1995.

13.Thirdly, learned counsel submits that owing to this uneven action

of appointment, termination, re-appointment, and re-termination, the

Respondent suffered great loss, and is now without any means of

livelihood. Learned counsel submits that there are few similarly placed

candidates who remain in service, despite disability, owing to the fact

that they were medically fit at the time of initial appointment. The

Respondent’s learned counsel stated that the Appellant is estopped

12

from terminating him as they had, firstly, reinstated him with open eyes,

and secondly, that he was never put to notice regarding his medical

unfitness. It was urged that such ground of non-disclosure was never

previously urged, before the Services Tribunal or the High Court. It was

canvassed that, as such, these appeals should be dismissed with costs

in favour of the Respondent.

ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION :

14.Having considered the matter in-depth, we find merit in the

contention of the Appellants. A simple issue has become complex

unnecessarily. The crux of the matter is as to whether somebody who is

otherwise unfit for even being considered for a post to which he applies,

which in the present case is that of a Police Constable, could retain

such appointment, once it is found on facts that he was not fulfilling the

basic eligibility criteria, in this case apropos medical fitness. Herein, the

Respondent applied for and was appointed to the post of Police

Constable. A basic requirement, concerning medical fitness, was that

an/the applicant should not be having knock knees, which mostly is

genetic/hereditary. While this is one aspect of the matter, the sequence

of events and, more importantly the conduct of the Respondent, is an

13

important factor which we have to keep in mind while adjudicating the

present lis.

15.The Appellant-State undertook a state-wide exercise for the

recruitment of Police Constables for every district, through 51 distinct

Recruitment Boards. On receipt of various complaints regarding mass

irregularities and discrepancies in the entire recruitment process, an

inquiry was ordered. After consequent re-verification of recruitments,

the State concluded that there indeed were mass discrepancies and

irregularities in the entire recruitment process. The State ordered en-

masse cancellation of recruitments carried out by 42 out of the 51

Recruitment Boards. What followed, predictably, was a great deal of

litigation. Many aggrieved persons approached the High Court through

Writ Petitions, which ultimately were disposed of by setting aside the

en-masse cancellation of the recruitments. A Single Bench of the High

Court directed that genuine and eligible persons be segregated from

the ineligible/tainted persons. This direction, though challenged before

the Division Bench, met with rejection, which ultimately led the State to

approach this Court by filing SLP(C ) No.12586 of 2009. This Court vide

Order dated 25.05.2009 passed in the said case, as an interim

measure, directed that the candidates whose selection was cancelled

14

en-masse, may be provisionally appointed, and their appointments

would be subject to the final outcome of the petition(s) before this

Court.

16.However, later, the State withdrew the said case on 08.03.2013.

Following the interim direction of this Court supra passed in the said

case on 25.05.2009, a policy was proposed to reconsider the cases of

the candidates whose selection was subjected to en-masse

cancellation. However, it is worthy to note here that the second round of

re-verification that was to be undertaken, i.e., the segregation as had

been proposed, was not qua the medical fitness of the candidates

concerned but rather was on other broad parameters. In this factual

light, Nitin Kumar Upadhyay, who the Respondent claims was similarly

placed as him, having been terminated on the ground of being

medically unfit, filed a representation before the authorities claiming

parity with persons whose cases were directed to be reconsidered.

Nitin Kumar Upadhyay did not disclose his specific case of being

medically unfit. Thus, the authorities, without consideration of the issue

of medical fitness, provisionally appointed Nitin Kumar Upadhyay.

15

17.Claiming parity with Nitin Kumar Upadhyay, the Respondent

approached the authorities, and sought appointment, without disclosing

anything else. This led to his appointment. The question of medical

eligibility/fitness was never gone into by the Superintendent of Police,

Jalaun.

18.However, it transpires that amidst a proceeding before the High

Court in a different but related matter, it came to the notice of the

authorities that the Respondent had been wrongly recruited as he had

not disclosed his medical condition of knock knees. Disciplinary

proceedings were initiated against him, which finally led to his services

being subjected to termination. This Order of termination was appealed

before the Appellate Authority, which upheld it. The Respondent then

moved the Revisional Authority, which did not interfere. Against these

Orders, the Respondent moved the Services Tribunal which interfered,

holding that there was no suppression on part of the Respondent and

this could not have been a ground for termination. Challenge to the

Judgment of the Services Tribunal by the Appellant failed in the High

Court. Review was sought of the High Court’s Judgment by the

Appellant which also was dismissed.

16

18.1 We have perused the Judgment dated 11.02.2021 passed by the

Services Tribunal carefully. To our minds, the core reasoning of the

Services Tribunal is erroneous. A person claiming parity or applying for

consideration of his case for appointment has to clearly disclose and

spell out all material factors, including medical fitness. It is only

thereafter, that the authorities would be obliged to consider the same in

accordance with law. However, it is not in dispute that the Respondent

never disclosed before the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun District,

that he had knock knee. Pausing here, it was well within the

Respondent’s knowledge that earlier his appointment was cancelled on

this very ground. Unfortunately for the Respondent, we are of the

opinion that such act is nothing short of deliberate suppression for the

reason that the Respondent was aware that such disclosure, per se,

would disentitle him from even being considered for the post of Police

Constable. Despite this, the Respondent represented himself as being

entitled to the said post. This would be an act in the realm of suppressio

veri and suggestio falsi.

19.The Court is constrained to note that the Superintendent of

Police, Jalaun District has also not acted in the manner a senior officer

is, expected, nay obliged to do. The said officer was duty-bound to

17

verify all aspects of eligibility before acceding to the request of the

Respondent. This appears to have been totally overlooked by him. It

speaks volumes about the manner in which senior officers conduct

themselves in the discharge of official duties, especially as regards

recruitments to public posts. Lack of sensitivity, responsibility and

caution causes immense damage not only to the credibility of the

system, as a whole, but militates against public interest, where

otherwise eligible persons get ousted by persons who are not eligible.

20. Moving on, another contention of the Appellants is that Nitin

Kumar Upadhyay obtained undue advantage by misrepresenting that

he was similarly situated to the candidates whose cases were directed

to be reconsidered by the High Court inasmuch as in that group, the

issue of medical fitness, or otherwise, was never gone into. As per

documents on record, Nitin Kumar Upadhyay suffered from colour

blindness, whereas the Respondent suffered from knock knee, both

conditions being a disqualification for the post in question. Be that as it

may, if Nitin Kumar Upadhyay is still in service, his case shall be

reconsidered on the touchstone of meeting the prescribed eligibility

criteria, including medical fitness. Needless to state, due procedure

shall be followed, and he will be given an opportunity of hearing.

18

Further action, if and as warranted, shall be taken basis the outcome of

the exercise indicated, positively within three months from date.

21.The Division Bench has rather simplistically granted its approval

to the Order passed by the Services Tribunal in a routine manner,

without considering the intricacies and larger implications of doing so.

Any appointment to any public post and more so, in uniformed services

has to be examined with a greater sense of responsibility. The scrutiny

expected from the High Court as also the Services Tribunal is of a

much higher level. Looked at from any angle, it is apparent that the

Respondent was medically unfit due to knock knee. The matter ends

there. No case-law can come to the Respondent’s rescue in such

scenario and precedents cited by learned counsel for the Respondent

operate in their set of facts. Herein, we have noticed the genesis of the

whole controversy and its impact. Nothing further need be stated on

this, which is determinative of the merits of the case. Lack of eligibility

goes to the root of the matter and appointment, wrongly made, cannot

be sustained once the factum of ineligibility, on the relevant date,

comes to light.

19

22.Another bothersome aspect is the manner in which the Services

Tribunal dealt with the matter. The larger public interest and the proven

irregularities in the recruitment process have not been properly

appreciated by the Services Tribunal. A technical distinction was sought

to be drawn by the Services Tribunal, and affirmed by the High Court,

that since the departmental proceedings were initiated on the charges

of ‘medical unfitness owing to ‘colour blindness’ and ‘for presenting

false and misleading report about Court orders’, both of which were

incorrect as the Respondent never suffered from colour blindness and

that he had never committed any positive act to mislead the authorities,

the action against him could not be sustained. The purported

distinction, while appealing at first blush, pales into insignificance when

we pose the most relevant question, namely, that by their observations,

do the Services Tribunal and the High Court mean to suggest that it is

permissible for a person with medical deformity ‘A’, which is enough to

disqualify him, join service by answering, rightly, that he does not suffer

from medical deformity ‘B’? The answer being in the negative, no

indulgence is warranted. The Services Tribunal and the High Court lost

sight of the fact that the case before them was not just a

service/appointment dispute but had emanated from a large-scale

recruitment hit by irregularities.

20

23. There is no doubt that the Appellants also grossly failed in

performing due diligence and ought to have been more vigilant before

reinstating the Respondent. But that cannot come to the Respondent’s

aid, in the overall background as has been sketched out hereinabove.

The Appellants are well-advised to act now to set their house firmly in

order, failing which, in futuro, coercive orders will follow from this Court.

24.In view of the discussions hereinabove, despite the valiant

efforts of learned counsel for the Respondent, the Impugned

Judgments as also Judgment dated 11.02.2021 passed by the Services

Tribunal stand set aside; the termination of the Respondent from the

post of Police Constable stands restored. However, in order to balance

equities: (i) amounts paid to the Respondent, for the period he has

actually worked for, shall not be recovered from him, and; (ii) if any

amount remains unpaid for period of actual service, the same shall be

paid to him within four weeks from date, failing which it shall carry

interest @ 6% per annum. These appeals stand allowed in the

aforesaid terms.

21

POST-SCRIPT:

25. We had granted liberty to the parties to file Written Submissions

not exceeding two pages. However, the Appellants’ Written

Submissions run into five pages. Registry shall treat the same, filed

vide Document No.261395/2025, as defective and return it; the said

document will not form part of the record before this Court.

26. The Appellants shall deposit Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand)

with the Supreme Court Bar Clerks Association Welfare Fund Trust.

Proof of deposit be filed within two weeks, failing which the Registry

shall place the matter before the Court.

27. We refrain from saddling the Respondent with costs.

..…………………....................J.

[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]

.………………...................…..J.

[N. V. ANJARIA]

NEW DELHI

APRIL 20, 2026