ARTICLE
13 October 2025

High Court Confirms – No Employment Rights From Fraudulent Appointments

BA
BTG Advaya

Contributor

BTG Legal is an Indian law firm with particular focus on: defence; industrials; digital business; energy (renewables and nuclear); retail; transport (railways and electric vehicles); and financial services. Practices include corporate transactions, commercial contracting, public procurement, private equity, regulatory compliance, employment, disputes and white-collar crime.
Courts in India have consistently stressed that integrity in hiring and employment is essential. While fair procedures and employee rights are central to service law, these principles are not absolute.
India Employment and HR
Arjun Paleri’s articles from BTG Advaya are most popular:
  • within Employment and HR topic(s)
  • with Senior Company Executives, HR and Inhouse Counsel
  • in United States
  • with readers working within the Technology and Law Firm industries

What Integrity means in Indian Employment Law?

Courts in India have consistently stressed that integrity in hiring and employment is essential. While fair procedures and employee rights are central to service law, these principles are not absolute. When issues of fraud, misrepresentation, or forged documents come up, the focus shifts to protecting the employer's right to ensure transparency, accountability, and adherence to eligibility requirements. A recent ruling1 of the Rajasthan High Court highlights this approach and shows how fraudulent entry into service is treated under the law.

What Unfolded: A Tale of Forged Degrees and False Claims

The case involved employees ("Petitioners" in this case), who were hired as probationary junior accountants at a state power distribution company ("Respondent" in this case). After their hiring, concerns arose about the authenticity of their educational qualifications. The Respondent conducted a verification process and found that the degrees the Petitioners used had never been issued by the university. They also discovered that the verification letters the Petitioners provided were forged. As a result, the Respondent terminated their employment. Simultaneously, the Respondent filed criminal complaints against the Petitioners.

The Petitioners disputed their termination, arguing that they were later acquitted in criminal proceedings related to the same accusations. They also claimed that after years of service, they should be considered confirmed employees with the right to due process and protection against unfair dismissal.

The court had to decide whether the termination of employees, on grounds of submission of forged educational qualifications could be sustained despite (i) their acquittal in related criminal proceedings.

How was the issue resolved?

The High Court upheld the termination orders of the Respondent despite the acquittal of the Petitioner in the criminal cases and substantiated the same with the following:

  1. Appointment and Required Qualifications: The court upheld the orders on the basis that although the Petitioners were appointed without having met the required qualifications, that dies not vest them with the right to continue their employment. The court added that the employer has the right to cancel such an appointment if it was made under the mistaken belief that the Petitioners were qualified.
  2. Criminal Acquittal vs Departmental Inquiry: The Petitioners mainly relied on the fact that the criminal courts had acquitted them on similar allegations in the criminal complaints filed by the Respondent. The court observed that this contention was illogical and misconceived as the standard of proof in a criminal case is different from that of a departmental inquiry. Further, the court added that in this particular scenario, the criminal court had acquitted the Petitioners by giving them the benefit of doubt.
  3. Principles of Natural Justice and Validity of Appointment: On principals of natural justice, the Court noted that the Petitioners had been given sufficient opportunities to produce documents verifying their qualifications. It further held that even if strict compliance with natural justice was lacking, the appointments were invalid from the outset due to forged certificates, and therefore the Petitioners could not claim a right to be heard.

How Employers can Sheild Themselves?

The judgment reaffirms that appointments obtained through fraud or forged documents are non-existent in the eyes of law. Employers are within their rights to cancel such appointments without fear of reinstatement, even if the employee has served for several years or has been acquitted in parallel criminal proceedings. For employers, the case highlights the importance of robust credential verification processes and provides judicial backing for decisive action where fraud is detected.

How This Ruling Strengthens the Foundation? – Fraud Never Wins

This decision underscores a consistent line of judicial reasoning: fraud vitiates all rights. An employment contract founded on misrepresentation cannot survive scrutiny, regardless of tenure or subsequent acquittal in criminal courts. For organizations, the ruling serves as reassurance that protecting workplace integrity will be upheld by the courts, even where employees argue procedural lapses or natural justice.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More