ANNULLING TAINTED RECRUITMENT; INDIVIDUAL SHOW-CAUSE NOT REQUIRED FOR SYSTEMIC FRAUD.

The applicants in O.A. No. 2051/2025 and O.A. No. 2052/2025 were appointed as Fireman/Fireman Driver in the Fire & Emergency Services Department of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir following a recruitment process that included physical tests, written examinations, document verification, and medical examinations.

They contended that they discharged their duties sincerely and their service records were satisfactory.

The legality of this selection process had been previously challenged before courts, but these challenges were dismissed, and the selection process was upheld by the High Court.

Subsequently, allegations of irregularities in the recruitment process surfaced, leading the Government to constitute an Inquiry Committee vide Government Order No. 1513-JK(GAD) of 2022 dated 12.12.2022 to examine these allegations.

The Inquiry Committee submitted its report on 10.02.2024, followed by communications from the General Administration Department and the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) concerning the alleged irregularities.

Based on these findings, the Government issued Government Order No. 608-Home of 2025 dated 15.12.2025, terminating the services of several appointees, including the applicants, on the grounds that the recruitment process was vitiated by irregularities.

The applicants argued that the termination order did not attribute any specific misconduct, fraud, or manipulation to them individually and was based solely on general observations in the inquiry report.

They further contended that the termination occurred without any show cause notice, framing of charges, or departmental enquiry.

In a connected matter, O.A. No. 643/2022, other applicants also belonging to the same recruitment process challenged the selection list issued pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 01 of 2013 dated 12.03.2013, alleging leakage of the question paper prior to the examination.

They also sought to quash Order No. 823 of 2020 Dated 04.10.2020, which sanctioned the appointment of private respondents, and requested a re-conduct of the written test for Fireman/Fireman Driver.

The respondents asserted that the recruitment process came under scrutiny due to complaints of large-scale irregularities.

The Inquiry Committee, after detailed examination, found serious irregularities and illegalities, supported by communications from the ACB, indicating a tainted process.

They argued that the termination was in the larger public interest to rectify the illegality and that individual notice or enquiry was not required as the termination was a consequence of systemic illegality, not individual misconduct.

Whether the applicants in OA Nos. 2051/2025 and 2052/2025 can claim continuation in service on the ground that no individual notice or departmental enquiry was held against each of them, despite the recruitment process itself being vitiated by grave and large-scale irregularities?

Whether OA No. 643/2022, challenging the validity of the selection process and appointments, survives for adjudication given the State's subsequent termination of the impugned appointments after an inquiry into the tainted recruitment?

The court primarily applied the principle that fraud vitiates every solemn act, citing *Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority v. Karamjit Singh*, (2019) 16 SCC 782, to establish that no right can be claimed on the basis of a fraudulent act and that a poisoned source cannot yield protected benefits.

It further relied on the principle that appointments made in violation of the constitutional scheme or through an illegitimate process do not create enforceable rights, as held in *State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh*, (2009) 5 SCC 65.

The court also cited *Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal*, (2013) 9 SCC 363, stating that where entry into service is based on falsehood or illegality, the employee cannot seek equitable protection.

Additionally, the court referred to *State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya*, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 719, for the proposition that if the recruitment process is prima facie tainted, beneficiaries cannot insist on the preservation of such appointments, and collective termination may be justified if systemic irregularities are proven.

It also held that Article 311(2) of the Constitution is not attracted to protect appointments void ab initio or secured through a fundamentally vitiated process, citing *R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala*, (2004) 2 SCC 105.

Finally, the court invoked *Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab*, (2006) 11 SCC 356, regarding mass irregularities and the circumstances under which an entire selection can be set aside if the process is sufficiently vitiated.

The court found that the recruitment process was "seriously tainted by fraud, manipulation and systemic irregularities" based on inputs from multiple agencies including ACB, Crime Branch, and CID.

These inputs revealed allegations of question paper leakage, mass copying, use of gadgets, impersonation, manipulation of marks, suspicious concentration of selections from particular districts, selection of under-qualified or ineligible candidates, and selection of multiple close relatives.

The court concluded that the recruitment was "so deeply contaminated that it lost the character of a fair public selection," thus affirming the Government's corrective action.

The court distinguished between individual misconduct post-appointment, which requires a departmental inquiry, and a fundamentally tainted selection process.

It reasoned that when the "selection process itself collapses because it is infected by fraud, manipulation and systemic illegality," the government is not obligated to retain the beneficiaries.

The court highlighted the public trust associated with employment and stated that no indefeasible right arises from an appointment originating from a "seriously polluted" selection.

The court noted that administrative action to cleanse a tainted recruitment "stands on a different footing" from criminal prosecution, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

It emphasized that the State need not await the conclusion of criminal trials before rectifying a constitutionally suspect recruitment.

Regarding natural justice, the court acknowledged its importance but stated its application depends on context.

For large-scale fraud and systemic manipulation, individual departmental inquiries would be unrealistic, futile, and would defeat public interest, especially when the "vice is embedded in the source itself."

The court rejected the argument that previous court proceedings upholding the selection created "perpetual immunity," as later credible evidence of manipulation surfaced.

The court observed that corrupt officials should be proceeded against, but their involvement "does not cleanse the appointments secured through a tainted process."

Consequently, no enforceable right to continue in service survived for the beneficiaries of such a process.

Article 311(2) of the Constitution was deemed inapplicable, as the appointments were void ab initio or the outcome of a tainted selection, thus constituting a withdrawal of an unlawful benefit rather than punitive removal.

The court found that the impugned action could not be invalidated solely because criminal prosecution against all involved persons was ongoing or because all erring officials had not yet faced final proceedings.

O.A. No. 2051/2025 is dismissed.

O.A. No. 2052/2025 is dismissed.

O.A. No. 643/2022 is disposed of as infructuous, as the State's corrective action of terminating the appointments has addressed the grievance.

The court directed the authorities of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir to ensure that the investigation is concluded, and all erring officials, middlemen, and other involved persons are proceeded against strictly and expeditiously, including through departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution, to uphold the rule of law and restore public faith.