State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Ajay Kumar Malik, 2026 INSC 394 - Public Employment - Parity
Lack of eligibility goes to the root of the matter and appointment, wrongly made, cannot be sustained once the factum of ineligibility, on the relevant date, comes to light.
Public Employment - Parity -A person claiming parity or applying for consideration of his case for appointment has to clearly disclose and spell out all material factors, including medical fitness. It is only thereafter, that the authorities would be obliged to consider the same in accordance with law. (Para 18.1) Discharge of Official Duties -Lack of sensitivity, responsibility and caution causes immense damage not only to the credibility of the system, as a whole, but militates against public interest, where otherwise eligible persons get ousted by persons who are not eligible. (Para 19)
Public Employment -Lack of eligibility goes to the root of the matter and appointment, wrongly made, cannot be sustained once the factum of ineligibility, on the relevant date, comes to light.
Case Info
Case name and neutral citationState of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Ajay Kumar Malik, 2026 INSC 394
CoramHon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin AmanullahHon’ble Mr. Justice N. V. Anjaria
Judgment date20 April 2026 (pronounced at New Delhi)
Case laws and citations referred
- Vishnu Vardhan v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1505
- Chandigarh Administration v Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 745
- Gursharan Singh v New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1996) 2 SCC 459
- Collector Singh v L.M.L. Ltd., Kanpur, (2015) 2 SCC 410
- Nizam v State of Rajasthan, (2016) 1 SCC 550
- M/s Associated Switch Gears and Projects Ltd. v State of U.P., 2024:AHC:12780
- Following/relied on:
- Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v Toyo Engineering Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 592
- Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar v Champdany Industries Ltd., (2009) 9 SCC 466
- Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v Shital International, (2011) 1 SCC 109
- Ramlala v State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 2479
- Jitendra Kumar v State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 2837
Statutes / laws referred
- Article 136 of the Constitution of India
- Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995
Three‑sentence brief summary
The Supreme Court held that the respondent, a police constable candidate who had twice been found medically unfit due to knock‑knee and later obtained reinstatement without disclosing this, was ineligible for the post and had suppressed a material fact. It set aside the orders of the State Public Services Tribunal and the Allahabad High Court that had directed his reinstatement, restored the termination, and criticised both the candidate’s conduct and the lack of due diligence by the appointing authority. Balancing equities, the Court protected amounts already paid for actual service (no recovery) and directed that any unpaid dues for the period actually worked be released within four weeks with interest in case of delay.