Validity of Disability Certificate Accepted at Appointment Can’t Be Challenged After 30 Years: MP High Court

In a recent decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, led by Justice Vivek Jain, partially upheld a writ petition concerning an inquiry into a disability certificate submitted for employment over 30 years ago. The court ruled that while authorities may investigate claims of forgery, they cannot question the legitimacy of qualifications accepted at the time of hiring, especially after such a long period and in the absence of specific allegations of fraud.

Background

The inquiry originated from an order dated December 20, 2023, issued by the Additional Collector of Balaghat District. It was prompted by a complaint alleging that Dharamdas Bhalekar had submitted a forged disability certificate when he entered service in 1993. The complaint suggested that Bhalekar only had a 15% temporary disability at the time of his appointment, rather than the required permanent disability of at least 40% as mandated by the Persons with Disabilities Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1995. Bhalekar contested the inquiry.

Arguments

Bhalekar raised two primary arguments against the inquiry. First, he asserted that it was unreasonable for the State authorities to investigate a certificate submitted three decades prior, especially as he had already served for 80% of his tenure and was nearing retirement. Second, he claimed that the inquiry was driven by malice, citing his previous complaints against Respondent No. 6, an Assistant Commissioner facing prosecution based on those complaints. Furthermore, he argued that the complainant, Dharmendra Lilhare (Respondent No. 7), was non-existent and that the complaints were anonymous, orchestrated by Respondent No. 6.

The State countered vehemently, arguing that if an appointment was secured through fraudulent means, the elapsed time should not matter. They maintained that any malice on the part of the complainant was irrelevant if the appointment was wrongfully obtained, relying on the legal principle that fraud nullifies all agreements.

Court’s Reasoning

Upon reviewing the complaint, the court noted that it did not claim the certificate was forged but only stated that it indicated a 15% temporary disability. The court underscored the important distinction between accepting an unacceptable certificate and dealing with a genuinely forged one. It highlighted that the complainant did not assert that Bhalekar lacked even the 15% temporary disability or that the certificate was never issued. This omission was significant, as it revealed a lack of clear allegations of fraud or forgery.

The court pointed out that the State had appointed Bhalekar in 1993 with full awareness of the certificate indicating a 15% temporary disability. It was not a case of suppression or misrepresentation but rather an oversight. The court referenced several Supreme Court cases, including Shri Krishan vs The Kurukshetra University (AIR 1976 SC 376) and Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal (2009) 1 SCC 610, asserting that admissions, although potentially illegal, should not be canceled after a significant lapse of time if there was no suppression or misrepresentation.

The court also cited Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2013) 14 SCC 494, which established that errors not attributable to appointees, and cases devoid of fraud or misrepresentation, should not lead to termination after long periods of service. Thus, the court concluded that authorities could not retrospectively question the acceptance of qualifications from 30 years prior, stating that “settled things cannot be allowed to be unsettled in this manner at the drop of a hat.”

Recognizing the need for balance, the court permitted an inquiry but restricted its scope to confirming whether the disability certificate was genuinely issued by the relevant authority. Consequently, the petition was partially granted, with the directive that if the certificate is validated, no adverse actions can be taken solely due to the disability percentage being deemed unacceptable at the time of appointment.