Concealment of Medical Unfitness Vitiates Appointment
In 2005, the respondent was selected for the post of Constable. Pursuant to the inquiry it was found that the respondent had obtained employment concealing the fact of knock-knee deformity and misleading interpretation of the interim order of provisional appointment by the Supreme court.
The Service Tribunal held that there was no evidence to prove the charges and directed reinstatement in service.
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.
Judgment dated 20.4.2026 of the Supreme Court of India in SLP (Nos). 11145-11146 of 2025 of the State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Ajay Kumar Malik
