Appointment Obtained via Forged Certificates Is Void Ab Initio: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinforced the principle that appointments secured through misrepresentation or fraud cannot be sustained in law, regardless of the length of service. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf dismissed a writ appeal challenging the recall of an Associate Professor's appointment due to forged experience credentials.

While hearing an intra-court appeal, the Court emphasized that fraud and forgery vitiate all proceedings and that such appointments are non est in the eyes of law. The appellant, who was appointed as an Associate Professor in 2014, had his services terminated after a fact-finding committee discovered that his experience certificates were not genuine.

Court's Rationale on Fraud and Appointment Validity

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is no more res integra that whenever an aspirant gets appointment by misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the appointing authority, such appointment order could not be sustained in the eyes of law and could be recalled by the appointing authority at any time whenever the fraud is discovered. It is also a settled position of law that no order can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud and Forgery vitiate all proceedings and dishonesty should not be permitted to bear fruits or benefit to the persons who played a fraud or made a misrepresentation."

The Bench further noted that since the appellant was still on probation and the appointment itself was obtained through dishonest means, the termination did not require a full-fledged departmental inquiry beyond the issuance of a show-cause notice.

Requirement of Requisite Experience

Upon perusing the recruitment records and various certificates submitted by the appellant, the Court found multiple discrepancies, including overlapping periods of employment at different institutes. The Court held: "From the perusal of the aforesaid certificates submitted by the appellant along with the recruitment application as well as record before this Court, we are not satisfied that the appellant was having the requisite experience of 5 years as stipulated in the employment advertisement. Thus, appellant was not entitled to continue on the post of Associate Professor in the absence of possessing requisite qualification of past experience."

Background:

The dispute originated from an advertisement issued in 2013 for the post of Associate Professor (Vocational Education and Entrepreneurship Development). The appellant was appointed on January 17, 2014, and placed on probation. In 2018, the employer (NITTTR, Bhopal) initiated a verification process for the experience certificates submitted during recruitment. The Technocrats Institute of Technology (TIT), Bhopal, informed the authorities that a certificate claiming experience from September 2004 to November 2005 was never issued by them and was invalid.

Following a show-cause notice and the rejection of the appellant's representation, his appointment was recalled on November 22, 2021. The appellant challenged this before a Single Judge, who dismissed the petition but protected the appellant from the recovery of wages already drawn for work performed. The appellant argued that under Rule 11 of the Staff Service Rules, he was a deemed confirmed employee and deserved a full inquiry as per the principles laid down in O.K. Bharadwaj Vs. Union of India & Ors. and V.P. Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. ( "(2000) 3 SCC 239": 2000 CaseBase(SC) 1021). However, the Division Bench distinguished these precedents, noting they did not apply to cases where the very foundation of the appointment was fraudulent. The Court concluded that the appointment was void ab initio, and the appeal was dismissed without costs.

Case Details:
Case No.: Writ Appeal No. 1193 of 2025
NeutralCitation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:34888
Case Title: ATUL MISHRA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri K.C.Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate with Ms. Warija Ghildiyal - Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Shri Piyush Bhatnagar - Advocate for respondent no.1; Ms. Kanak Gaharwar and Shri Rameshwar Masram - Advocates for respondent nos.2 to 4.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MP) 13