Deliberate suppression of a prior termination order justifies disqualification and cancellation of contractual appointment.

The petitioner had worked for the National Health Mission as a contractual District Quality Monitor from 15 March 2022 to 31 March 2025.

By order dated 17 April 2025, the respondents declined to extend his engagement for the following financial year, referring to performance concerns and Clause 11.1 of the Contractual Human Resource Manual, 2025.

The petitioner challenged that order in an earlier writ petition, where he described his services as terminated; that petition was later withdrawn with liberty to file afresh if occasion arose.

In 2026, the petitioner applied for and was appointed as a contractual District Nutrition Coordinator, having disclosed his previous employment.

The respondents terminated that appointment on 29 September 2026, treating the 2025 order as a termination that made him ineligible for five years under Clause 1.6, and alleging that he had withheld the order during document verification.

Whether the order dated 17 April 2025 constituted a termination within the meaning of Clause 1.6 of the Manual, making the petitioner ineligible for appointment for five years.

Whether the petitioner’s failure to produce that order at document verification amounted to suppression of material information sufficient to sustain termination of his fresh appointment.

Whether the absence of a show-cause notice or hearing invalidated the termination order dated 29 September 2026.

Clause 1.6 of the Contractual Human Resource Manual, 2025 provides that a contractual employee whose services have been terminated is ineligible for appointment to the Mission for five years and that concealment of this information may be treated as misconduct; Clause 11.1 concerns discipline and conduct.

Under Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, suppression does not automatically determine an employment decision: the employer must consider the materiality of the information and the circumstances.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437, recognizes that an employer may act against an employee for suppressing material information relevant to appointment.

The Court also relied on Biecco Lawrie Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 10 SCC 32, and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. S.G. Kotturappa, (2005) 3 SCC 409, for the principle that a hearing may be dispensed with where it would be an empty formality.

The Court treated the 17 April 2025 order as a termination on the ground that the petitioner had described it as such in his earlier writ petition and that the order referred to Clause 11.1 on discipline and conduct.

It noted that the petitioner had not challenged that order in the present proceedings and concluded that Clause 1.6 therefore applied.

The Court further accepted the respondents’ position that the petitioner had not produced the order during document verification and treated the omission as deliberate suppression of information material to his eligibility.

On that basis, it held that a show-cause notice would not have altered the outcome and would have been an empty formality.

It rejected the challenge to the absence of a show-cause notice and dismissed the writ petition, leaving the termination order dated 29 September 2026 undisturbed.