Haryana Staff Selection Commission v. Manender Singh & Ors.

Judgment

#1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment order 27.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 14300 of 2023.

#2. In the present appeal, the Haryana Staff Selection Commission is before this Court to contend that the relief granted by the learned Single CM-3625-LPA-2026 ; CM-3622-LPA-2026 ; CM-3623-LPA-2026 ; CM-3624-LPA-2026 and CM-3626-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1481-2026 3 Judge vide order dated 27.05.2025 in CWP No. 14300 of 2023 of treating the respondent No. 1 herein in the ESM Category and allowing them to continue despite recording a finding that the posts of Clerks vide Advertisement No. 10/2025 dated 24.11.2015 in various departments of State of Haryana

required to be filled up, were first to be offered to the ESM (General) Category Candidates and only in case, any post is left, the same could be offered to the dependent of Ex-serviceman (DESM) and no such dependents became eligible keeping in view the fact that all the posts were occupied by the Ex-servicemen themselves i.e. (ESM), the learned Single Judge wrongly allowed the respondent No. 1 to continue in service by recording a finding that no incorrect information was given by the respondent No. 1 while making an application.

#3. Before adjudication upon the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge could be undertaken, direction was given to the State to produce the original application form of the respondent No. 1 so as to find out whether, the respondent No. 1 had applied by giving incorrect information or correct information, to be taken into consideration while making recruitment.

#4. It may be noticed that as per conceded position between the parties the respondent No. 1 was selected and appointed by treating him as Ex-serviceman (ESM) and not dependent of Ex-serviceman. CM-3625-LPA-2026 ; CM-3622-LPA-2026 ; CM-3623-LPA-2026 ; CM-3624-LPA-2026 and CM-3626-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1481-2026 4

#5. The original application form of respondent No. 1 has been brought before this Court, wherein, respondent No. 1 has mentioned himself as an Ex-serviceman (Self) i.e. (ESM) Category and not as a dependent upon the Ex-serviceman and the said information has been taken to be true by the Commission while considering the claim of the respondent No. 1 so as to appoint him by treating him as an Ex-serviceman and not dependent of an Ex-serviceman.

#6. Prima facie, the information given by the respondent No. 1 in the application form is incorrect and the said incorrect information has led to the selection as well as appointment of the respondent No. 1. The original form brought by the appellant has been shown to learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and learned Senior counsel after going through the declaration made by respondent No. 1 in the application form has not been able to rebut that incorrect information was given in the application form to the effect that respondent No. 1 is himself Ex-serviceman and not the dependent of an Ex-serviceman, which incorrect fact led to his selection and appointment being Ex-serviceman himself.

#7. That being so, the question which arises is whether, any wrong information given in the application form which has been accepted by the respondent No. 1 on the face of it, which led to the selection and appointment, such selection needs to be interfered with even if such selectee has also been appointed. CM-3625-LPA-2026 ; CM-3622-LPA-2026 ; CM-3623-LPA-2026 ; CM-3624-LPA-2026 and CM-3626-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1481-2026 5

#8. The said issue has already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5671 of 2012 titled as Jainendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. Tr. Prinl. Sec. Home and others, 2012 (8) SCC 748. The relevant paragraph 31 of the said judgment is as under :- “31. As noted by us, all the above decisions were rendered by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of two-Judges and having bestowed our serious consideration to the issue, we consider that while dealing with such an issue, the Court will have to bear in mind the various cardinal principles before granting any relief to the aggrieved party, namely: (i) Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the employer or could be recalled by the employer and in such cases merely because the respondent employee has continued in service for a number of years, on the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment, cannot get any equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer.”

#9. In the present case, it is clear that the selection of the respondent No. 1 is based upon an incorrect fact mentioned in the application form which led to his selection and subsequent appointment. Had, the correct information been given in the application that respondent No. 1 is dependent of an Ex-serviceman, he would not have made through selection process much less to the appointment on the post on which he was working on all the CM-3625-LPA-2026 ; CM-3622-LPA-2026 ; CM-3623-LPA-2026 ; CM-3624-LPA-2026 and CM-3626-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1481-2026 6 post in ESM Category i.e. first to be offered to Ex-serviceman and only vacant post were to be offered to dependent of Ex-serviceman.

#10. Hence, such appointment has to be dealt within a manner to inspire confidence in the general public that anyone getting a Government job on the basis of incorrect information supplied, can be thrown out so as to discourage such kind of activities/attempts on the part of the candidate.

#11. Once, in the present case it is clear that the selection and appointment of respondent No. 1 was on the basis of the incorrect fact provided by the respondent No. 1 himself, hence, the direction given by the learned Single Judge in judgment dated 27.05.2025 to allow respondent No. 1 to reinstate in service by creating a supernumerary post, is not made out in the facts and circumstances of the case as such direction is perversed to the settled principle of law noticed here-in-before. In the present case, selection of respondent No. 1, which is based upon wrong facts supplied by him cannot be protected so as to direct the State to create supernumerary post. It will amount to proceed an illegal appointment.

#12. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the selection and appointment of respondent No. 1, which has already been held to be invalid by the learned Single Judge and keeping in view the original record shown to this Court, was based upon incorrect fact submitted by respondent No. 1 himself, such appointment cannot be allowed to continue and that too CM-3625-LPA-2026 ; CM-3622-LPA-2026 ; CM-3623-LPA-2026 ; CM-3624-LPA-2026 and CM-3626-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1481-2026 7 by giving a direction to the State to create a supernumerary post. The said direction is accordingly set-aside.

#13. It is noticed that the post which is vacated by respondent No. 1 will only be filled from a candidate who is eligible under the selection process and is next in merit keeping in view the category from which the appointment was to be made that i.e. Ex-serviceman and in case of non- availability of Ex-serviceman himself/herself, than to the meritorious/senior most dependent of the Ex-serviceman.

#14. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the Commission verified the documents and the scrutiny was done and, therefore, once the scrutiny was done, the benefit of appointment could not have been withdrawn. On being asked whether there was a Clause in the Advertisement that in case any incorrect information is given in the application form by the candidate, candidature of such candidate will stand cancelled without any further consideration, learned Senior Counsel has not been able to rebut that said claim exists in the Advertisement, hence, the subsequent scrutiny done by the Commission will not give any right to the respondent No. 1 to claim selection and appointment when, concededly, the information given by respondent No. 1 was incorrect and any candidate giving incorrect information, his/her candidature is liable to be rejected and, therefore, such argument that the incorrect information given by the CM-3625-LPA-2026 ; CM-3622-LPA-2026 ; CM-3623-LPA-2026 ; CM-3624-LPA-2026 and CM-3626-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1481-2026 8 respondent No. 1 should have been verified diligently by the State, cannot come to the rescue of respondent No. 1.

#15. Keeping in view observations made herein, the order dated

27.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 14300 of 2023 is accordingly set-aside.

#16. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. July 17, 2026 kanchan (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes : No Whether reportable