Fraudulently Obtained Appointment Can Be Cancelled Without CCA Probe: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that appointments obtained through fraud or forged documents do not grant the appointee the status of a 'Government servant' entitled to the full protection of disciplinary rules, as such entries are void ab initio.

A division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal examined a bunch of special appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan against a Single Judge order which had set aside the termination of several Physical Training Instructors. The State contended that the respondents had secured their positions using forged educational certificates and mark sheets.

Distinction Between Service Misconduct and Pre-Appointment Fraud

The Court analyzed whether the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 applied to individuals whose very entry into service was based on deception. The bench noted that the definition of a "Government servant" presupposes a lawful entry into the cadre.

In its reasoning, the Court observed: "Fraud vitiates every solemn act. If the appointment itself is void or non est in the eyes of law, the incumbent cannot claim a statutory protection flowing from the very appointment which is alleged to have been obtained fraudulently... A person who secures an appointment by practising fraud or by producing forged or fabricated documents cannot be permitted to contend that, merely because an order of appointment was issued and he was allowed to work for some time, he acquired the status of a Government servant so as to insist upon a full-fledged departmental inquiry."

Applicability of Article 311 of the Constitution

The Court emphasized that the procedural safeguards under Constitution of India, 1950 and the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 are reserved for those who validly hold a civil post. Relying on R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. and Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Vs. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir and Ors. ( "(2008) 13 SCC 170": 2008 CaseBase(SC) 158), the Court held that where the foundation of an appointment vanishes due to the discovery of false testimonials, the length of service rendered becomes irrelevant. The bench further cited State of Chhatisgarh and Ors. Vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar and Meghmala and Ors. Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy and Ors. ( "(2010) 8 SCC 383": 2010 CaseBase(SC) 772) to reiterate that equity and sympathy have no place in cases involving forged certificates, and The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad to establish that disciplinary proceedings are not required for void appointments.

Directions for Re-Enquiry by the Administrative Committee

While the Court agreed that a full-fledged inquiry under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 was not mandatory, it stressed that basic principles of natural justice must still be followed before passing orders with adverse civil consequences.

The Court has the following directions:

"(i) The appeals are partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, setting aside the termination orders, is modified to the extent that the observation made by the learned Single Judge requiring the appellants to follow the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1958 before terminating the services of the respondents-petitioners is set aside.

(ii) The direction given by the learned Single Judge relegating the matter to the Committee is maintained. However, the composition of the Committee shall stand modified in the manner indicated hereinabove.

(iii) The newly reconstituted Committee shall be formed within a period of fifteen days from today. The Committee shall issue notices to the respondents-petitioners. Upon receipt of such notices, the respondents-petitioners shall submit their responses within a period of one month. After receiving such responses, the Committee shall conclude the proceedings within a further period of two months. In any event, the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months."

Background:

The dispute began when the respondents were selected as Physical Training Instructors, Grade III, following an advertisement in 2022. Subsequent verifications by a committee constituted by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board suggested that the educational documents submitted by the respondents were forged. Based on this, the State issued show-cause notices and subsequently terminated their services. The respondents challenged these terminations before a Single Judge, who ruled that the State was mandatorily required to follow the inquiry procedure under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The Division Bench has now modified this finding, allowing for a streamlined inquiry by a committee comprising a Board Secretary, a Joint Director of Education, and an Administrative Officer of R.A.S. rank.

Case Details:
Case No.: D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1162/2025
Case Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Chandra Pal Singh & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Advocate-cum-Advocate General with Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG assisted by Mr. Anirudh Singh Shekhawat and Ms. Mehali Mehta
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Lakshya Singh Udawat, Mr. Kuldeep Vishnoi, Mr. Mahesh Chandra Bishnoi, Mr. Divik Mathur, Mr. Manish Patel, Mr. Harsh Raj Purohit, Mr. Pranjul Mehta

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 22