Suppression of known medical disqualification vitiates appointment to public posts and precludes claims of parity.

The Respondent was selected as a Police Constable in 2005. Following complaints of recruitment irregularities, a medical re-test in 2007 found the Respondent unfit due to a "knock knee deformity," leading to his termination

A second medical board in 2009, constituted under High Court directions, confirmed this unfitness

Parallelly, a group of candidates challenged en-masse recruitment cancellations in the Pawan Kumar case, leading to a Supreme Court interim order for provisional appointments

In 2013, seeking parity with one Nitin Kumar Upadhyay (who was reinstated despite unfitness), the Respondent obtained provisional reinstatement without disclosing his prior medical disqualifications

Upon discovering the non-disclosure, the State initiated disciplinary proceedings, resulting in the Respondent’s termination in 2017

The State Public Services Tribunal and the Allahabad High Court set aside the termination, holding that there was no evidence of misrepresentation as the Respondent’s re-appointment was "with open eyes"

1. Whether a candidate who is fundamentally ineligible due to medical unfitness can retain an appointment obtained through the non-disclosure of material facts

2. Whether the principle of parity or negative equality can be invoked to sustain an appointment that is otherwise contrary to eligibility criteria

The Court applied the fundamental principle that "fraud unravels everything," as established in Vishnu Vardhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh

It reinforced the doctrine that there is no concept of "negative equality" under Article 14 of the Constitution, relying on Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh and Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, which establish that a wrong order in favor of one person does not entitle others to claim similar relief

the Court emphasized the principles of suppressio veri (suppression of truth) and suggestio falsi (suggestion of falsehood), holding that a candidate for public office has an affirmative duty to disclose all material facts affecting eligibility

The Court reasoned that the Respondent’s failure to disclose his knock knee deformity—despite knowing his appointment had been cancelled twice for that specific reason—constituted deliberate suppression

The Court critiqued the Services Tribunal and the High Court for adopting a "simplistic" and "technical" approach by focusing on whether the Respondent committed a "positive act" to mislead, rather than addressing the core issue of his fundamental ineligibility

The Court held that for uniformed services, scrutiny of medical fitness must be rigorous; an appointment rooted in a lack of basic eligibility cannot be sustained regardless of the State’s procedural lapses in re-verifying the candidate’s status

The Court further clarified that even if others like Nitin Kumar Upadhyay remained in service through similar misrepresentations, the Respondent could not claim parity, as equality cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality

The Court held that lack of eligibility goes to the root of the matter and a wrongly made appointment cannot be sustained once ineligibility comes to light

To balance equities, the Court directed that wages already paid for periods of actual service should not be recovered, and any outstanding wages for actual work must be paid within four weeks with 6% interest

the Court directed the State to review the appointment of Nitin Kumar Upadhyay on the same touchstone of eligibility

The Appellants were also directed to deposit ₹5,000 to the Supreme Court Bar Clerks Association Welfare Fund Trust for filing excessive written submissions