In a strong stand against fraudulent employment practices, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered the immediate removal of a Malaria Technical Supervisor in Shivpuri. The court found that the candidate had submitted a forged experience certificate during the selection process. Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia ruled that fraud in government job selection is a serious offense and cannot be ignored.

Read also: Baseless Allegations Of Communal Bias In Transfer Can Disrupt Administration: MP High Court

Justice Ahluwalia, while delivering the judgment, emphasized:

"Playing fraud on the selection committee or filing forged documents is a serious matter which cannot be ignored. Fraud vitiates everything."

The court stated that this was not a simple case of miscalculated marks but a deliberate act of deception. Since the candidate had submitted false credentials, the court ruled that his selection was invalid and must be canceled immediately.

As a result, the court:

1. Quashed the selection of the candidate.
2. Declared the post vacant with immediate effect.
3. Ordered the candidate to stop working as Malaria Technical Supervisor (MTS) without delay.

Read also: Section 25 HMA | Spouse Cannot Be Ordered to Pay Permanent Alimony Without an Application: Madhya Pradesh High Court

“Since respondent No. 9 filed a forged experience certificate, his candidature and selection stand quashed. The post is declared vacant, and he must cease work immediately.”

Background of the Case

The matter arose from a 2013 recruitment process for the position of Malaria Technical Supervisor in Shivpuri. A petition was filed challenging the selection process and alleging irregularities in the appointment of certain candidates (Respondent No. 6 to 10).

Petitioner’s Claims:

• The selection process was unfair.
• Despite securing the highest marks in the written exam, the petitioner received lower marks in the interview, affecting his overall ranking.
• The interview process was manipulated to favor certain candidates.

State’s Response:

• The Selection Committee, led by the District Collector, had the authority to decide the recruitment process.
• The interview was conducted as per established guidelines.
• One of the selected candidates (Respondent No. 6) had already left the job, making the petition against him irrelevant.

Read also: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Centre Two Weeks to Respond to PIL on Public Awareness of POCSO Act

1. Selection Committee Had Authority Over the Process

The court examined whether the Selection Committee had the right to design its own procedure for recruitment. It concluded that since the hiring was conducted at the district level, the committee was fully authorized to choose its method of selection (written test, interview, or multiple-choice questions).

"The selection committee had full authority to develop its own procedure for recruitment."

2. Allegations of Bias Could Not Be Proved

The petitioner claimed that the interview marks were deliberately reduced to favor other candidates. However, the court stated that:

• There was no solid evidence to prove this claim.
• The Selection Committee itself was not made a party in the case, making it difficult to establish bias.

“If an allegation of malafide or bias is made against a person, that person must be a party to the case. Without such inclusion, it is difficult to prove malafide intentions.”

Thus, the court did not interfere with the marks awarded by the Selection Committee.

The most critical aspect of the case was the revelation that Respondent No. 9 had submitted a fake experience certificate. The court found that:

• The attendance register of the relevant department did not contain his signature.
• He claimed to have worked as a volunteer, but there was no official record of his employment.
• He failed to provide any other experience certificates proving his alleged tenure.

“It is surprising that Respondent No. 9 was awarded three additional marks for an experience of 2 years and 10 months, whereas his only available certificate shows employment for just 3 months.”

Since the experience certificate was proven to be forged, the court held that:

1. The candidate had gained an unfair advantage through fraud.
2. The Selection Committee wrongly awarded him additional marks.
3. His selection was therefore completely invalid.

After considering all aspects, the High Court ruled:

1. The candidate’s selection stands canceled.
2. His employment is terminated immediately.
3. The position must be opened for fresh recruitment.

The court also rejected the argument that the merit list should be revised instead of canceling the appointment altogether. It emphasized that fraud cannot be overlooked or partially rectified—it must be fully eliminated.

“Since the selection of Respondent No. 9 was based on fraudulent documents, the position must be declared open for new recruitment.”

Case Title: Nitin Gautam Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 4202 Of 2013