The Supreme Court of India has set aside a judgment of the Allahabad High Court and the State Public Services Tribunal, restoring the termination of a police constable who was found medically unfit due to a “knock knee deformity.” The Court emphasized that a person who does not fulfill basic eligibility criteria cannot retain a public appointment, particularly in uniformed services, even if the authorities failed in their due diligence during reinstatement.
Background of the Case
The matter dates back to 2005, when the Respondent, Ajay Kumar Malik, was selected as a Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police. Following complaints of irregularities, a 4-Member Inquiry Committee was formed. Separately, a Medical Board was constituted to re-examine recruits. In 2007, the Respondent was found medically unfit due to a “knock knee deformity,” leading to the cancellation of his appointment.
The Respondent challenged this before the Allahabad High Court in Ravishankar Yadav v State of UP. The High Court directed a new Medical Board to re-examine the candidates. In January 2009, the new board again found the Respondent unfit due to the “presence of knock knee,” and his appointment remained cancelled.
Parallelly, the State had ordered en-masse cancellations of recruitments by 42 out of 51 Recruitment Boards. This was challenged in Pawan Kumar & Ors. v the State of UP. The Supreme Court, in an interim order dated May 25, 2009, directed provisional appointments of candidates affected by the en-masse cancellation, subject to the final outcome.
In 2013, seeking parity with one Nitin Kumar Upadhyay (another medically unfit candidate who had obtained a provisional reinstatement order), the Respondent approached the authorities. The Respondent was provisionally reinstated on December 9, 2013. However, following a subsequent inquiry which revealed that the Respondent had been found medically unfit twice previously, a chargesheet was issued. On May 17, 2017, the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun, terminated his services. This termination was upheld by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities but was later set aside by the State Public Services Tribunal and the Allahabad High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants (State of Uttar Pradesh): Learned counsel for the State argued that “fraud unravels everything,” citing Vishnu Vardhan v State of Uttar Pradesh (2025). It was submitted that the Respondent obtained reinstatement by seeking parity with candidates who themselves had misrepresented facts. The State contended there is no concept of “negative equality” (Chandigarh Administration v Jagjit Singh, 1995). They further argued that the Respondent’s cancellation was independent of the en-masse cancellations and that he misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s interim orders to claim he was covered by them.
Respondent (Ajay Kumar Malik): The Respondent’s counsel argued that the charges against him were for “concealment,” which the Tribunal found unproved. They claimed the 2013 reinstatement was done with “bona fide disclosure” of his deformity. It was further argued that the Respondent was fit at the time of his initial 2005 appointment and developed the deformity during service, thus seeking protection under Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. Counsel also noted that the authorities were estopped from terminating him after reinstating him with “open eyes.”
The Court’s Analysis
A Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice N. V. Anjaria found the reasoning of the Services Tribunal and the High Court erroneous.
1. On Suppression of Material Facts: The Court observed that the Respondent was aware his appointment was previously cancelled twice for knock knees. “Unfortunately for the Respondent, we are of the opinion that such act is nothing short of deliberate suppression… This would be an act in the realm of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi,” the judgment stated.
2. On the Role of Authorities: The Court criticized the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun, for failing to verify eligibility before reinstating the Respondent. “It speaks volumes about the manner in which senior officers conduct themselves in the discharge of official duties… Lack of sensitivity, responsibility and caution causes immense damage… to the credibility of the system.”
3. On Medical Unfitness vs. Misrepresentation: The Court rejected the technical distinction drawn by the lower forums that the Respondent didn’t suffer from “colour blindness” (the specific deformity mentioned in some notices).
“Do the Services Tribunal and the High Court mean to suggest that it is permissible for a person with medical deformity ‘A’, which is enough to disqualify him, join service by answering, rightly, that he does not suffer from medical deformity ‘B’? The answer being in the negative, no indulgence is warranted.”
4. On Eligibility as a Root Requirement: The Court held that any appointment to a uniformed service must be examined with a higher sense of responsibility. “Lack of eligibility goes to the root of the matter and appointment, wrongly made, cannot be sustained once the factum of ineligibility, on the relevant date, comes to light.”
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgments of the Allahabad High Court and the Services Tribunal, thereby restoring the Respondent’s termination.
However, to balance equities, the Court directed:
- Amounts already paid to the Respondent for actual work performed shall not be recovered.
- Any unpaid amount for the period of actual service must be paid within four weeks, failing which it will carry 6% interest per annum.
- The State was directed to reconsider the case of Nitin Kumar Upadhyay (if still in service) on the touchstone of eligibility criteria within three months.
The Court also took exception to the Appellants’ written submissions exceeding the two-page limit and ordered the State to deposit Rs. 5,000 with the Supreme Court Bar Clerks Association Welfare Fund Trust.
Case Details:
- Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v Ajay Kumar Malik
- Case No.: Civil Appeals Nos. ___ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11145-11146 of 2025)
- Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice N. V. Anjaria
- Date: April 20, 2026
