LexStreakRead free →
Madras High Court· 23 July 2026

Can a person retain a public post obtained by fraud?

C.Santhanakumar v. The Executive Officer, Mukkudal Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Tirunelveli
WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024 · WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024
Coram: Justice B.Pugalendhi
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow G.O.Ms.No.602, Social Welfare De…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. Fraud and justice never dwell together, and the law does not permit a person to retain an advantage obtained by practising fraud or misrepresentation. Fraud vitiates every solemn act, so a person who secures public employment by practising fraud cannot seek the protection of the law to retain that appointment, which is void ab initio.

Headnote

Public employment — Priority quota for persons with disabilities — Fake disability certificate — Fraud — Appointment void ab initio — Disciplinary enquiry — Public employment — Character of an appointment — Whole recruitment process examined — Held: The nature of an appointment is not determined solely by the words of the appointment order; the court may examine the requisition, the category under which the candidate was sponsored and the records accompanying that sponsorship to ascertain its true character. (¶16) Public employment — Fraud — Appointment void ab initio — Held further: Fraud and justice never dwell together: an appointment obtained by practising fraud upon the public exchequer is void ab initio, and a person who secures public employment by fraud cannot invoke the law to retain it. (¶20, ¶21) Reservation — Priority quota — Injury to the reserved class and to other priority groups — Held further: One who takes a post reserved for persons with disabilities without being disabled defrauds not only the Government but the disabled and the other priority categories deprived of their turn. (¶19, ¶21) Disciplinary enquiry — Later medical finding ignored — Enquiry report set aside — Held further: Delay explained by medical examination and pending criminal proceedings is no ground to quash; but an enquiry resting on an earlier report while ignoring a later Medical Board finding cannot stand. Petitions dismissed, one allowed. (¶23, ¶27)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 20At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the well-settled principle of Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together). The law does not permit a person to retain an advantage obtained by practising fraud or misrepresentation. In Union of India v. Prohlad Gupta [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1865], the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that fraud vitiates every solemn act and that a person who secures public employment by practising fraud cannot seek protection of the law to retain such appointment, in the following terms:
Paragraph 21Therefore, an appointment obtained by practising fraud upon the public exchequer is void ab initio. The persons with disabilities are treated as a priority category as the State has an obligation to facilitate the advancement of persons with disabilities. Therefore, the petitioners WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch cannot claim any equity or legal right over the posts reserved for persons with physical disabilities, when they are not physically disabled persons. By obtaining public employment in the priority quota meant for physically disabled persons through fake disability identity cards and certificates and continuing in service for around eight years, the petitioners have committed fraud not only upon the Government, but also upon disabled persons and persons belonging to other priority categories who were deprived of their lawful employment opportunities.
Acts & Sections
G.O.Ms.No.602, Social Welfare Department, dated 14.09.1981

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of C.Santhanakumar v. The Executive Officer, Mukkudal Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Tirunelveli — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Is the character of a public appointment determined only by what the appointment order says?Whom does a person injure by occupying a post reserved for a disadvantaged category to which he does not belong?Can a disciplinary enquiry stand where it rests on an earlier medical opinion and ignores a later Medical Board finding?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections