Is the character of a public appointment determined only by what the appointment order says?

No. The nature of an appointment cannot be determined solely from the wording employed in the appointment order. The Court is entitled to examine the entire recruitment process — the requisition made by the appointing authority, the category under which candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the records accompanying such sponsorship and the circumstances culminating in the appointment. It is only by examining the recruitment process as a whole that the true character of the appointment can be ascertained.

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)

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.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India