Madras High Court· 23 July 2026
Whom does a person injure by occupying a post reserved for a disadvantaged category to which he does not belong?
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
Answer
Not the State alone. The priority system exists to give targeted affirmative action to marginalised groups in a prescribed order of priority. A person who takes a post reserved for persons with disabilities without being disabled takes away a post meant for them, and also snatches away the opportunities of the other priority categories who would have been considered in that order.
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 18The priority category system for recruitment by calling for candidates from the Employment Exchange was introduced by the Government to provide targeted affirmative action and opportunities for WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch marginalized or disadvantaged societal groups. As per this system, there is an order of priority wherein multiple marginalized groups are listed and the employment under the priority posts should be made by following this order. However, the other categories belonging to the priority system were bypassed and the names of the petitioners were sent by the Employment Exchange that they are physically disabled.
Paragraph 19It is also relevant to note that the Government introduced 3% reservations in State Public Services for physically disabled persons vide G.O.Ms.No.602, Social Welfare Department, dated 14.09.1981 with the object of ensuring their welfare and social advancement. However, it was found that the petitioners were not physically disabled but were accommodated under the priority posts meant for the physically disabled persons and by misusing the reservation provided for the benefit of persons who are actually physically disabled. Therefore, the petitioners have not only taken away the posts meant for the physically disabled persons but also snatched away the opportunities provided to the other priority groups as per the order of priority. WP(MD)Nos.29546 of 2024, etc., batch
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 14.09.1981One 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 accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →