An appointing authority’s error cannot justify terminating a long-serving employee absent fraud or misrepresentation.

The applicant was selected and appointed as a Laboratory Technician in 2013 after sponsorship by the Employment Exchange.

The respondents later terminated her service, effective 24 March 2018, on the ground that she held a one-year Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology, whereas the applicable Recruitment Rules then prescribed a two-year Diploma.

She challenged the termination, relying on her service record and alleging that she had disclosed her qualification and had made no misrepresentation.

During the proceedings, she continued in service under an interim order.

The Tribunal also considered RTI information showing that candidates with one-year diplomas had been appointed in other CGHS regions, and that the prescribed qualification was subsequently reduced to a one-year diploma.

1. Whether the applicant’s appointment could be treated as illegal, and her service terminated, because she held a one-year rather than a two-year diploma, when she had disclosed her qualification and the discrepancy resulted from the authorities’ selection and appointment decisions.

2. Whether the termination could be sustained in the circumstances, having regard to the applicant’s service, absence of fraud or misrepresentation, and subsequent amendment of the qualification requirement.

The applicable Recruitment Rules prescribed a two-year Diploma in Laboratory Technology at the time of the applicant’s appointment; the rules were later amended to prescribe a one-year diploma.

The Tribunal applied the distinction between an illegal appointment and an irregularity attributable to the appointing authority, relying on Dr. M.S. Mudhol v. S.D. Halegkar, (1993) 3 SCC 591, and MD Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, (2016) 12 SCC 342, for the principle that an employee who has disclosed the relevant facts and is not responsible for the authorities’ error should not ordinarily bear its consequences after serving for a substantial period.

It also relied on Pawan Kumar Tiwary v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, 2025 INSC 1000, concerning the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments, and Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, 2023 INSC 709, in considering the consequences of disturbing appointments after substantial service.

The applicant’s one-year diploma did not meet the qualification prescribed when she was appointed.

However, the Tribunal found that she had disclosed her qualification, was sponsored and selected through the prescribed process, and had neither suppressed facts nor misrepresented her credentials.

The RTI material showed that candidates with one-year diplomas had also been appointed in other CGHS regions, and the rules were later amended to accept that qualification.

On these facts, the Tribunal treated the defect as an irregularity attributable to the authorities rather than an appointment procured by the applicant’s fraud or misrepresentation.

Given her service before termination and continued service under interim protection, it held that the termination could not be sustained solely on that ground.

It directed the respondents to regularize the applicant’s service in accordance with the applicable rules and extend consequential monetary and service benefits admissible in law, completing the exercise within three months of receiving the order.

The Original Application was allowed with no order as to costs.