Published On: February 24, 2022 at 16:21 IST
The Allahabad High Court held that when Employment in Public Sector is obtained by Fraud, then the long continuation in service would be immaterial to uphold the appointment.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh said, “It is evident that the Petitioner played Fraud for securing employment and thus, his continuation in service for 15 years would not help him continue the service as his appointment was Void Ab Initio.”
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition filed by a Class IV employee at King George’s Medical University, Lucknow. His services were terminated by an Order passed by the Registrar. The Vice-Chancellor dismissed an appeal filed against the Order.
An Employment was obtained by the Petitioner under provisions of UP Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 after his father’s death. His father was a University Employee.
During an Inquiry, it was found that the Petitioner concealed the fact that his mother was employed in the Pediatric Department of the University. There is a specific bar under the Rules that compassionate appointment cannot be granted if wife/husband/family member is employed in Central/State Government or corporation/organization owned/controlled by the Centre/State.
Senior Advocate Bulbul Godiyal, representing the Appellant stated that the Petitioner has been working for 15 years since his appointment. Also, his mother submitted an Affidavit in Petitioner’s favor stating that he did not conceal any fact and the recommendation for the appointment was given by University’s Construction Division under the Rules.
Advocate Shubham Tripathi, representing the Respondent stated that the Petitioner provided misleading facts and concealed material facts. His appointment was Void Ab Initio and hence, he shall not be granted relief on the ground of sympathy. Also, he does not have a legal right to continue in service as he had no legal right to get appointed.
The Court relied upon Shesh Mani Shukla vs District Inspector of Schools, Deoria & Ors (2009) wherein it was opined that the Appellant was appointed in contravention of Statutory Provision which was illegal and void ab initio.
It relied upon MS Patil vs Gulbarga University & Ors (2010) wherein the Apex Court held that there is no place for concepts of adverse possession or holding over in Service Law.
The Court rejected the argument saying that the Petitioner was appointed upon the recommendation of the Construction Division stating that it was based on incorrect and concealed fact. Therefore, the appointment was “Void ab initio”.