Allahabad High Court Declares Compassionate Appointment Void Due to Fraudulent Claims

Krishna Kant's appointment annulled for misrepresentation and submission of forged documents; court emphasizes the principle that "fraud vitiates everything."

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, has declared the compassionate appointment of Krishna Kant to be void ab initio. The decision, dated October 17, 2025, underscores the legal principle that appointments obtained through fraudulent means, such as the submission of forged documents and concealment of material facts, are legally nullified from the outset.

Krishna Kant had secured a position as an Assistant Teacher in the Basic Education Department based on a claim of being the son of the deceased employee, Sumitra Devi, supported by a legal heir certificate and affidavit. However, it was later revealed through a detailed inquiry that Krishna Kant was, in fact, the son of Yashoda Devi, Sumitra Devi's sister. The inquiry found that the petitioner's father, Natheram, had misrepresented the family structure to procure the appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

The court's judgment highlights the serious implications of fraud in public appointments. It ruled that the appointment was obtained by deceit, thus making it void from the beginning, without the need for a formal inquiry under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized that fraud nullifies all legal acts and that no equitable relief can be claimed by individuals who engage in fraudulent activities to secure public employment.

The case originated from a complaint by Snehlata, the legitimate daughter of Sumitra Devi, who alleged that Krishna Kant had illegitimately claimed the compassionate appointment. The court's decision also considered the fact that Snehlata and her sister Anita were the actual dependents of the deceased, further invalidating Krishna Kant's claim.

The judgment extensively discusses the doctrine of clean hands and the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, asserting that individuals who engage in fraud are not entitled to judicial relief. The court further clarified that the stay of criminal proceedings related to the alleged forgery does not prevent the administrative and disciplinary actions from proceeding.

This ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding the integrity of public service appointments and deterring fraudulent practices. It reinforces the legal principle that any benefit obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment of facts is unsustainable in the eyes of the law.

Bottom Line:

Compassionate appointment obtained through fraudulent means, including submission of forged documents and concealment of material facts, is void ab initio and does not confer any enforceable right.

Statutory provision(s): Constitution of India, Article 226, 311, Uttar Pradesh Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 5(1).

Krishna Kant v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2796120