Supreme Court Upholds UP Constable's Dismissal Over Medical Ineligibility

The Supreme Court recently observed that a person seeking appointment to a public post, or claiming parity with another candidate, must fully disclose all material facts, including medical fitness. Court said authorities are obliged to consider such claims only after all relevant facts are clearly disclosed.

Court further emphasised that if a candidate lacks the prescribed eligibility on the relevant date, the appointment cannot be sustained once such ineligibility comes to light.

It stressed that lack of sensitivity, responsibility and caution in public recruitment damages the credibility of the system and harms public interest by allowing ineligible persons to occupy posts meant for eligible candidates.

"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," Court said.

Also Read| Can't be denied public employment on suppression of facts of criminal case pending: Supreme Court

A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and N V Anjaria made the observations while allowing an appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh government against judgments of the Allahabad High Court, which had upheld the reinstatement of Ajay Kumar Malik as a police constable.

Malik had been selected for the post of police constable in 2005. However, following an inquiry into recruitment irregularities, he was found medically unfit. A final termination order was issued in 2017. The State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, later set aside the termination and restored his appointment, a decision that was subsequently upheld by the high court.

The State challenged these orders before the Supreme Court, contending that Malik had been found medically unfit on two occasions and his appointment had therefore been rightly cancelled.

Malik, on the other hand, argued that he had been terminated for allegedly concealing his medical condition and not merely because of medical unfitness. His counsel submitted that the allegations of concealment and misrepresentation had not been proved and that his reappointment in 2013 was made after bona fide disclosure of his knock-knee deformity.

Why did the Supreme Court uphold the termination from service?

Examining the issue, Court said the central question was whether a person who was otherwise ineligible for consideration for a post could continue in service after it was discovered that he did not fulfil the basic eligibility criteria.

The Bench noted that one of the prescribed medical requirements for appointment as a police constable was that the candidate should not have knock knees, a condition which is generally genetic or hereditary.

Also Read| “Equal opportunity in public employment is constitutional mandate but appointment cannot be claimed as a right”: Madras High Court

Court also noted that the respondent had sought parity with another candidate who had been reappointed after the mass cancellation of recruitments carried out by 42 of the 51 Recruitment Boards following complaints of irregularities.

However, Court found that Malik had never disclosed before the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun, that he suffered from knock-knee deformity.

"Unfortunately for the respondent, we are of the opinion that such act is nothing short of deliberate suppression," the Bench observed, adding that Malik knew such disclosure would have rendered him ineligible for appointment. Court termed his conduct as one falling within the realm of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.

Court also criticised the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun, for failing to verify the respondent's eligibility before allowing his reinstatement.

"The said officer was duty-bound to verify all aspects of eligibility before acceding to the request of the Respondent. This appears to have been totally overlooked by him," the Bench said.

What did the Supreme Court say about the Allahabad High Court and Services Tribunal orders?

The Supreme Court held that both the services tribunal and the high court failed to properly appreciate the broader implications of the case.

According to the Bench, the high court had approved the tribunal's order in a routine manner without considering the intricacies involved or the larger public interest concerns arising from the recruitment process.

Also Read| Entire recruitment process of public employment becomes illegitimate if systemic fraud/irregularities are found: Allahabad HC

"Any appointment to any public post and more so, in uniformed services has to be examined with a greater sense of responsibility," the Court said, adding that the scrutiny expected from the high court and the tribunal was of a much higher level.

The Bench observed that once it was established that the respondent was medically unfit due to knock knees, the matter effectively ended there and no judicial precedent could come to his rescue.

Court further remarked that the tribunal and the high court lost sight of the fact that the dispute did not arise from a routine service matter but stemmed from a large-scale recruitment process marred by irregularities.

What relief did the Supreme Court grant?

While setting aside the orders in Malik's favour, Court noted that the State authorities had also failed to exercise due diligence while reinstating him. However, it clarified that such lapses could not legitimise an otherwise invalid appointment.

To balance equities, Court directed that the salary already paid to Malik for the period he actually worked would not be recovered. It further ordered that any unpaid dues for the period of actual service be paid within four weeks, failing which they would carry interest at six per cent per annum.

As for the other candidate who had been granted similar relief, Court directed that his case be reconsidered afresh on the touchstone of the prescribed eligibility criteria, including medical fitness, after giving him an opportunity of hearing. The exercise has been directed to be completed within three months.

Court also imposed costs of Rs 5,000 on the appellants for filing written submissions running into five pages despite being permitted to file submissions not exceeding two pages.

Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh And Ors Vs Ajay Kumar Malik

Bench: Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and N V Anjaria 

Date of Judgment: April 20, 2026