Suppression of material facts – Employment – Consequence Paras 18, 18.1 A candidate seeking appointment/reinstatement must disclose all material facts, including medical condition. Non-disclosure of disqualifying condition amounts to: deliberate suppression (suppressio veri), and misleading representation (suggestio falsi). (Para 18.1) Such suppression disentitles the candidate from: consideration, and continuation in service.

advocatemmmohan

(A) Public Employment – Eligibility – Medical fitness – Effect of ineligibility

Paras 14, 21

• Eligibility criteria, particularly medical fitness, goes to the root of appointment.
• Where a candidate is found medically unfit (knock knee deformity):
  • he is not entitled to be considered or retained in service.
• Appointment made despite lack of eligibility cannot be sustained once ineligibility is established. (Para 21)

---

(B) Suppression of material facts – Employment – Consequence

Paras 18, 18.1

• A candidate seeking appointment/reinstatement must disclose all material facts, including medical condition.
• Non-disclosure of disqualifying condition amounts to:
  • deliberate suppression (suppressio veri), and
  • misleading representation (suggestio falsi). (Para 18.1)
• Such suppression disentitles the candidate from:
  • consideration, and
  • continuation in service.

---

(C) Negative equality – Parity – Impermissibility

Paras 7, 20

• There is no concept of negative equality in law.
• A candidate cannot claim parity:
  • with persons who themselves obtained benefit through irregularity or misrepresentation.
• Even if similarly situated persons are continuing, their cases must be independently scrutinised. (Para 20)

---

(D) Fraud / Misrepresentation – Effect on appointment

Paras 7, 18

• Appointment obtained by:

  • suppression, or
  • misleading representation,

  is vitiated in law.

• Principle: fraud vitiates all actions applies to public employment.

---

(E) Disciplinary proceedings – Scope of charge – Technical objections

Paras 22

• Technical distinction between:

  • wrong description of defect (e.g., colour blindness vs knock knee),

  is irrelevant where candidate is otherwise disqualified.

• Core issue is lack of eligibility, not nomenclature of charge.

---

(F) Judicial review – Approach of Tribunal and High Court

Paras 21, 22

• Tribunal and High Court erred by:
  • adopting technical approach,
  • ignoring core issue of eligibility,
  • failing to consider public interest in recruitment.
• In service matters involving public posts, scrutiny must be:
  • strict and responsibility-oriented.

---

(G) Employer’s lapse – Effect

Paras 19, 23

• Failure of authorities to verify eligibility:
  • reflects lack of due diligence,
  • but does not confer right on ineligible candidate.

---

(H) Disability – Protection – Not applicable

Paras 12, 14

• Protection under disability law not applicable where:
  • candidate was not eligible at relevant stage, or
  • defect disqualifies him from post itself.

---

(I) Relief – Equity – Limited protection

Para 24

• While termination upheld:
  • salary already paid for work not recoverable,
  • unpaid salary for actual work to be paid with interest.

---

FINAL DISPOSITION

Para 24

• Appeals allowed.
• Orders of Tribunal and High Court set aside.
• Termination of respondent restored.
• Limited equitable relief granted regarding salary.