Public employment secured through forged disability certificates is void ab initio regardless of service duration.

The petitioners were recruited as various staff members (Sanitary Workers, Junior Assistants, etc.) in Town Panchayats and Municipalities in Tirunelveli District between 2005 and 2015 via the District Employment Exchange.

Following a formal complaint in 2015 regarding a forged signature of a Civil Assistant Surgeon on disability documents, an FIR was registered, and the investigation was transferred to the CB-CID.

A review by the District Collector and subsequent Medical Board examinations of 103 individuals appointed under the "physically disabled priority quota" revealed that only 25 were actually disabled; most petitioners were found to have no clinical disability.

Consequently, the respondent authorities initiated disciplinary proceedings and terminated the petitioners from service for securing employment through fraud.

The petitioners challenged these terminations, asserting they never misrepresented their status and that their appointment orders did not explicitly mention the "priority quota".

1. Whether the disciplinary authorities possessed sufficient objective material to conclude that the petitioners secured appointments by relying upon non-genuine disability documents.

2. Whether the termination orders and disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by arbitrariness, procedural delay, or violation of natural justice.

3. Whether a person who secures public employment through misrepresentation or fraud is entitled to constitutional protection or equitable relief.

The Court applied the doctrine of Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together), asserting that fraud vitiates every solemn act.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Union of India v. Prohlad Gupta (2024), which established that employment obtained via fraud is void ab initio and does not grant the employee protection under the Constitution.

G.O.Ms.No.188 (1976), which dictates the strict order of priority for employment sponsorship (e.g., Ex-servicemen, destitute widows).

G.O.Ms.No.602 (1981) regarding the 3% reservation for physically disabled persons.

The Court rejected the petitioners' defense that their appointment orders did not specify a "priority category," ruling that the recruitment process must be viewed as a whole—from the initial requisition to the Employment Exchange sponsorship—to determine the appointment's true character.

The Court found "suspicious factors": the Employment Exchange bypassed other priority categories to sponsor the petitioners specifically as "physically disabled"; the Exchange possessed disability cards containing the petitioners' photographs and signatures which were later proven fake by a Medical Board; and the petitioners produced "fitness certificates" at the time of entry that contradicted their claimed disability status.

The Court reasoned that by using forged documents, the petitioners deprived genuine disabled candidates and other priority groups of their rightful opportunities.

Regarding delay, the Court held it was justified by the complexity of the medical examinations and the ongoing CB-CID investigation.

The Court dismissed 22 out of 23 writ petitions, upholding the terminations; however, in WP(MD)No.1141 of 2025, the Court set aside the show cause notice because a later Medical Board report confirmed a 40% permanent disability that the Enquiry Officer had ignored.

The Court impleaded the Secretary to Government (Labour Welfare) and directed a high-level committee to investigate systemic lapses within the District Employment Exchange and the role of its officials in the document fabrication within six weeks.