Submission of forged experience certificates during selection vitiates appointment and warrants termination despite satisfying eligibility otherwise.

The Appellant was appointed as a Senior Technician with the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) on January 20, 2021, after a selection process that required two years of practical experience as an essential eligibility condition

During her probation period, a vigilance exercise alleged that two of her three submitted experience certificates were forged or partially false

Specifically, one certificate from Rajaram Dharnia Herro College was declared forged, and another from Jagtamba ITI was deemed partially false due to intermittent employment during COVID-19

Following a Show Cause Notice and the Appellant's reply, the Respondents terminated her services via Memorandum dated September 19, 2022

The Appellant challenged this via a Writ Petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on March 19, 2026

The Appellant then preferred this Letters Patent Appeal, contending that the termination violated principles of natural justice and that her remaining valid experience met the two-year threshold

1. Whether the termination of a probationer based on the discovery of forged/false eligibility documents requires a full-scale departmental enquiry or violates the principles of natural justice if a Show Cause Notice was issued

2. Whether the lack of essential eligibility (minimum experience) at the time of appointment renders the entry into service void, regardless of subsequent performance or the validity of other certificates

The Court applied the doctrine that essential eligibility criteria are foundational to public employment, relying on District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990), which establishes that a person lacking requisite qualifications has no enforceable right to hold a post

The Court further applied the DoPT Office Memorandum dated May 19, 1993, which mandates the discharge of a probationer or temporary servant who secured an appointment by furnishing false information or false certificates

Additionally, the court upheld the principle that appointments are provisional and subject to verification of character and antecedents as per the appointment letter

The Court reasoned that the requirement of two years' experience was an essential eligibility condition rather than an ancillary formality; therefore, any falsity in establishing this experience struck at the root of the appointment

The Court rejected the Appellant’s argument that she was denied natural justice, noting that she was served a Show Cause Notice and her reply was duly considered before the termination order was passed

Regarding the Appellant’s claim of satisfying the experience requirement through the remaining certificates, the Court conducted a factual calculation: excluding the forged certificate and accounting for the intermittent nature of the "partially false" certificate, the Appellant’s total experience amounted to only 19 months and 10 days, falling short of the required 24 months

The Court also held that a prior "clean" verification does not preclude the employer from conducting a subsequent, more rigorous verification

The Court affirmed that the submission of forged certificates renders a candidate's tenure untenable, irrespective of probation status

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, and the Impugned Judgment upholding the termination was sustained

No order as to costs was made