State of Uttar Pradesh & Orsv.Ajay Kumar Malik

Legal Analysis: State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Ajay Kumar Malik

Citation: (2026) INSC 394
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah (Single Judge Bench)
Judgment Author: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Date of Decision: April 20, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal under Article 136 against High Court order affirming reinstatement of a terminated police constable.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The respondent was appointed as a police constable in 2005 but was terminated in 2007 after being found medically unfit due to a “knock knee” deformity. He was later reinstated in 2013 claiming parity with another candidate who had obtained reinstatement by misrepresentation. A departmental inquiry found him guilty of suppression and misrepresentation, leading to his termination again in 2017. The State Public Services Tribunal and the High Court set aside the termination, holding that the charges were not proved. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the respondent was never medically fit for the post; his reinstatement was obtained by suppressing the material fact of his knock knee deformity. Lack of basic eligibility goes to the root of the matter, and any appointment obtained by suppression cannot be sustained. The Court restored the termination but directed that salary for actual work done not be recovered.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Field Details Case Title State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Ajay Kumar Malik Civil Appeal Nos. Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos. 11145-11146 of 2025 Bench Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah (Single Judge) Date of Decision April 20, 2026 Appeal From Judgment dated 18.09.2023 of Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No.6974/2021 and order dated 12.04.2024 in Review Application

2. Legal Framework

Laws and Principles Involved:

• Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136 (special leave to appeal), Article 14, 16 (equality in public employment).

• Service Jurisprudence: Eligibility criteria for public employment; suppression of material facts; fraud unravels everything.

• Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995: Section 47(1) – protection for employees acquiring disability during service (held not applicable as the deformity existed at the time of appointment).

• Principles of parity: No concept of negative equality – an illegality cannot be perpetuated by claiming parity with others who were also illegally appointed.

Precedents Cited:

• Vishnu Vardhan v. State of U.P. (2025) – Fraud unravels everything.

• Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh (1995) 1 SCC 745 – No negative equality.

• Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1996) 2 SCC 459 – Same.

• Collector Singh v. LML Ltd. (2015) 2 SCC 410 – Scope of Article 136.

• Nizam v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 1 SCC 550 – Concurrent findings.

• Associated Switch Gears v. State of U.P. (2024) – Authority cannot travel beyond show cause notice.

3. Relevant Facts

• 2005: Respondent selected as Constable in U.P. Police.

• 2007: Medical re-test found him unfit due to “knock knee deformity”. Appointment cancelled.

• 2007-2009: Litigation challenging en-masse cancellation of recruitments. Supreme Court directed provisional appointments subject to final outcome (25.05.2009).

• 2013: State withdrew the SLP. One Nitin Kumar Upadhyay (medically unfit – colour blindness) obtained reinstatement by misrepresenting that he was covered by the provisional order. Six others similarly reinstated.

• 28.10.2013: Respondent claimed parity and was provisionally reinstated without disclosing his knock knee condition.

• 2014-2015: Departmental inquiry initiated for suppression of medical unfitness and misrepresentation.

• 17.05.2017: Termination order passed by SP, Jalaun; upheld by Appellate and Revisional Authorities.

• 2018: Respondent filed claim before State Public Services Tribunal. Tribunal allowed the claim, holding no suppression.

• 18.09.2023: High Court dismissed State’s writ appeal; review dismissed on 12.04.2024.

• 2026: Supreme Court allowed State’s appeal, set aside reinstatement.

4. Issues

1. Whether the respondent’s reinstatement in 2013 was valid when he was medically unfit (knock knee) at the time of initial appointment and suppressed this fact.

2. Whether the doctrine of parity could be invoked to claim reinstatement based on another candidate’s illegal reinstatement.

3. Whether the departmental termination was sustainable despite the Tribunal and High Court holding that the specific charge of “colour blindness” was not proved.

5. Ratio Decidendi

• Medical unfitness at the time of appointment is a fundamental disqualification: The respondent had knock knee deformity when he first applied. This condition disqualified him from being a police constable. His initial termination in 2007 was correct. The fact that he later sought reinstatement without disclosing this condition was a suppression of a material fact (Para 18-19).

• No negative equality: The respondent claimed parity with Nitin Kumar Upadhyay, who had also been reinstated by misrepresentation. The Court held that an illegality cannot be perpetuated by claiming that others who were illegally appointed are still in service. There is no concept of negative equality (Para 7, 20).

• The technical distinction drawn by the Tribunal was erroneous: The Services Tribunal held that the charge of “colour blindness” was not applicable to the respondent and that there was no positive act of misrepresentation. The Supreme Court held that this missed the real issue – the respondent was medically unfit for the post, and he suppressed that fact. Whether he suffered from colour blindness or not was irrelevant; knock knee itself was a disqualification (Para 22).

• Fraud unravels everything: The entire chain of events – from the mass irregularities in recruitment to the reinstatement obtained by misrepresentation – was tainted. The respondent cannot retain the benefit of an appointment obtained by suppression (Para 7, citing Vishnu Vardhan).

• Section 47 of the Disabilities Act not applicable: The respondent claimed that he acquired the deformity during service, but the medical records showed its presence at the time of initial appointment. Even otherwise, knock knee is not a disability covered under the Act in the same manner; but more importantly, the condition existed at the time of recruitment (Para 12, 18).

• State’s negligence does not confer a right: While the Superintendent of Police failed to verify the respondent’s medical fitness before reinstating him, this lapses on the part of the State cannot legitimise an illegal appointment (Para 19, 23).

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• Suppression of a disqualifying medical condition at the time of seeking reinstatement is fraud: Even if the initial appointment was cancelled, a candidate seeking reinstatement on the basis of parity must disclose all material facts, including any prior disqualification. Failure to do so is suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.

• The concept of “negative equality” applies even when the State itself made the earlier illegal appointment: The fact that the State reinstated some candidates does not create a right for others to claim the same illegality. Courts will not compel the State to repeat a mistake.

• Technical compliance with show cause notice cannot cure fundamental ineligibility: Even if the departmental proceedings had a technical defect (e.g., charging colour blindness instead of knock knee), the fundamental fact remains that the respondent was never eligible. The Court can go into the root of the matter.

7. Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

• Examination of the parity claim: The Court noted that Nitin Kumar Upadhyay obtained reinstatement by misrepresenting that he was covered by the Supreme Court’s interim order, which was meant for candidates affected by the en-masse cancellation, not for medically unfit candidates. The respondent blindly followed suit without disclosing his own disqualification.

• Critique of the Services Tribunal and High Court: The Tribunal focused on the narrow ground that the charge of “colour blindness” was not proved and that the respondent had not actively misrepresented. The Supreme Court held that this approach was “erroneous” and “lost sight of the fact that the case had emanated from a large-scale recruitment hit by irregularities.” The real question was eligibility, not the precise wording of the charge (Para 22).

• Rejection of Section 47 argument: The respondent claimed that he developed knock knees after joining service. The Court found that the medical re-test in 2007 was conducted shortly after his appointment, and the condition was present then. Moreover, knock knee is typically a congenital/developmental condition, not an acquired disability during service. Hence, no protection under the Disabilities Act (Para 12, 18).

• Balancing equities: Despite setting aside the reinstatement, the Court ordered that salary paid for actual work done shall not be recovered, and any unpaid salary for actual service shall be paid. This was to avoid undue hardship to the respondent who had worked for several years (Para 24).

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment correctly upholds the principle that eligibility for public employment is a threshold requirement that cannot be waived by the State’s negligence or by claiming parity with other illegal appointees. It reaffirms the doctrine that fraud unravels everything and that courts will not enforce negative equality. The criticism of the Services Tribunal and High Court for missing the forest for the trees is justified.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not explicitly address whether the departmental inquiry was fair – it bypasses the Tribunal’s finding that the charge of “colour blindness” was not proved. The Court essentially re‑decided the eligibility issue on the basis of the medical reports, which is permissible because ineligibility goes to the jurisdiction of the appointing authority. However, some may argue that the State should be estopped from terminating him after having reinstated him with full knowledge (the Court notes that the SP did not verify, but the State’s own negligence cannot confer a right).

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited by employers to terminate employees who were appointed despite being ineligible, even if the employer was negligent at the time of appointment. It also reinforces that no employee can claim protection based on the fact that other ineligible employees continue in service. However, it also directs that salary for actual work done need not be recovered, providing some relief.

9. Final Outcome

Appeals allowed. The impugned judgments of the Allahabad High Court dated 18.09.2023 and 12.04.2024, as well as the order of the State Public Services Tribunal dated 11.02.2021, are set aside. The termination of the respondent from the post of Police Constable is restored. However, amounts paid to the respondent for the period he actually worked shall not be recovered. Any unpaid salary for actual service shall be paid within four weeks, failing which it shall carry interest @6% per annum. The State shall reconsider the case of Nitin Kumar Upadhyay (the candidate whose parity was claimed) within three months. No costs. The Appellants were directed to deposit ₹5,000 with the Supreme Court Bar Clerks Association Welfare Fund for filing an over‑length written submission.

10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

• By employers (State/public authorities): When an employee is found to have been ineligible at the time of appointment (e.g., medical unfitness, lack of qualification), you can terminate the employee even if the appointment was made negligently. Do not rely on the fact that other ineligible employees are still in service – “negative equality” is not a defence. However, if the employee has worked for a long period, consider not recovering salary for actual work done to avoid hardship.

• By employees: If you have a medical condition that disqualifies you for a post, do not suppress it. If you are reinstated after a previous termination, fully disclose all prior disqualifications. Do not rely on the reinstatement of another similarly situated person unless you are certain that their reinstatement was lawful. If you are terminated for ineligibility, you cannot claim parity with others who were illegally retained.

• By courts/tribunals: When examining service disputes arising from mass recruitment irregularities, focus on the fundamental eligibility of the employee, not merely on the technical wording of the charge sheet or procedural defects. If the employee was never eligible, that alone is sufficient to uphold termination, regardless of the department’s earlier negligence.

11. Court Lines

“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. … 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.” (Para 19)

“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.” (Para 22)

“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.” (Para 21)

“There is no doubt that the Appellants also grossly failed in performing due diligence … But that cannot come to the Respondent’s aid, in the overall background as has been sketched out hereinabove.” (Para 23)

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For the employer (State): When you discover that an employee was ineligible at the time of appointment (e.g., medical unfitness), terminate the employee promptly. Do not wait for years, but even if you do, you can still terminate. In the termination order, focus on the fundamental ineligibility, not on ancillary charges. If the employee claims parity with other ineligible employees who were retained, cite Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh and this judgment to argue that “negative equality” is not a valid defence. Also, ensure that you follow due process – issue a show cause notice, conduct an inquiry, and give an opportunity to be heard. But even if there are technical defects in the inquiry, if the ineligibility is clear from the record, the termination may still be upheld.

For the employee (respondent): If you are terminated for ineligibility that existed at the time of appointment, you may argue that the employer had full knowledge of your condition at the time of reinstatement (if they reinstated you after a medical check). Also, if you acquired the disability during service, seek protection under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act. However, if the condition was present at the time of initial appointment and you suppressed it, you have little chance of success. In such cases, negotiate for non-recovery of salary already paid and seek compassionate grounds. Do not rely on parity with others.