Candidate Securing Employment Using Forged Records Has No Vested Right To Hold Public Office: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld an order cancelling appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak (Village Employment Assistant) of Gram Panchayat Mednipur, observing that a candidate securing public employment through forged records is not entitled to hold public office. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 337]

The bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that the petitioner had manipulated the Gram Panchayat's register to bypass the statutory cut-off date, making his appointment void ab initio. 

"a candidate who secures entry through tainted or forged official records has no vested right to hold public office. The petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. He cannot submit an application supported by backdated register entries and then take the equitable defense that the forged document was unnecessary for his overall meritscore. Fraud is not quantified by its necessity; it is defined by its deceit". 

The State Government had issued recruitment guidelines on November 10, 2009, pursuant to which applications were invited with the deadline of March 5, 2010. The petitioner had applied under the same and was appointed on July 28, 2010. However, his services were terminated through a cancellation order following a complaint alleging that the petitioner's application was submitted after the prescribed deadline. 

The controversy revolved around the Gram Panchayat's receipt register, which recorded that the petitioner's application was received on March 5, 2010. However, the computer experience certificate enclosed with the application by Radix College showed the date of March 9, 2010. The authorities held that the application could not have been submitted on March 4 with a certificate that did not exist till March 9.  

The petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector of Satna, but the same was rejected on the ground that the certificate was issued on March 9, 2010, based on the sworn certificate from the Director of Radix College. 

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court, wherein the termination order was quashed, and the matter was remanded back to the Collector to conduct an enquiry strictly with respect to the preparation of the receipt register maintained by the Gram Panchayat. 

Complying with the order, the Collector examined the entry in the register of March 4, 2010, and found that the entry was forged and made after the deadline to accommodate the petitioner. Thus, the present writ petition was filed. 

The senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the Collector essentially reapproved his earlier order without conducting a proper enquiry and failed to comply with the explicit directions of this court. It was argued that even if the certificate is assumed to be dated March 9, no marks were allocated for this certificate, and therefore it was redundant. The cancellation of the appointment on the basis of a document that did not alter comparative merit was arbitrary, illegal, and bad in law. 

The counsel for the Gram Panchayat argued that a candidate who secures entry through forged official records has no vested right to hold office. 

The bench noted that the petitioner is seeking reevaluation of evidence, but the court under the jurisdiction of Article 226 does not sit over findings of fact recorded by a competent authority. It was clarified that a High Court cannot reappraise, review, and reweigh the evidence to substitute its own views unless it is shown that the order is perverse. 

The bench rejected the argument that the petitioner's forgery was inconsequential, emphasizing that “Fraud vitiates everything” (Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant). Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another". 

The court elucidated that a person who has secured public employment through fraud or deliberate misrepresentation cannot claim equity in his favour. Fraud or misrepresentation does not create any enforceable right in favour of the appointee. 

"If the foundational act in this case, the timely and honest submission of the application form is tainted by forgery and backdating, the entire structure of the appointment collapses", the bench remarked.

 Therefore, the court found no error in the impugned order. The bench noted that the Collector of Satna had acted in compliance with the High Court order. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition. 

Case Title: Shankhpal Namdeo v State of MP WP-1827-2013

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 337

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Hemant Shrivastava with Advocate Prabha Armo

For State: Government Advocate Vijayendra Singh Choudhary

For Gram Panchayat: Advocate Ram Sharan Rathore

Click here to read/download the Order