SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ON MEDICAL UNFITNESS, FRAUD & POLICE CONSTABLE REINSTATEMENT
CASE SUMMARY – The Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs Ajay Kumar Malik (2026) restored the termination of a UP Police Constable who had been found medically unfit due to knock knee deformity. The respondent was initially appointed, removed after medical re-examination, later reinstated provisionally, and then terminated again after disciplinary proceedings. The Court held that medical eligibility is a basic requirement for police service and suppression of disqualification vitiates appointment. It ruled that ineligible candidates cannot claim parity with wrongly appointed persons. While restoring termination, the Court protected salary already paid for actual service rendered.
| ASPECTS | DETAILS |
| Introduction | The case concerns whether a police constable found medically unfit due to knock knee deformity could continue in service after provisional reinstatement. |
| Factual Background | Respondent was selected in 2005 as Police Constable. In 2007 and again in 2009, medical boards found him unfit due to knock knee deformity. Appointment was cancelled. Later, relying on parity with others, he was provisionally reinstated in 2013. Departmental inquiry led to termination in 2017. Tribunal and High Court set aside termination; State appealed. |
| Legal Issues | 1. Whether medically unfit candidate can continue in police service. 2. Whether suppression/non-disclosure of disqualification invalidates appointment. 3. Whether parity can be claimed with wrongly reinstated candidates. |
| Applicable Law | Article 136 Constitution of India; Principles of public employment eligibility; Fraud vitiates all actions; No negative equality under Article 14. |
| Analysis | Court held medical fitness was an essential eligibility criterion. Respondent knew his earlier cancellation was due to knock knee deformity but failed to disclose it while seeking reinstatement. Such suppression amounted to suppressio veri, suggestio falsi. Equality cannot be claimed based on another illegal appointment. |
| Conclusion | Supreme Court allowed appeals, set aside Tribunal and High Court judgments, restored termination. Salary already paid for actual work not recoverable; unpaid dues for actual service to be paid with 6% interest if delayed. |
| Current Scenario | Respondent stands terminated from service. State directed to review similar cases and ensure lawful recruitment procedures. |
“Lack of eligibility goes to the root of the matter and appointment wrongly made cannot be sustained.”
SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
