The MP High Court ruled that qualifications at appointment can't be challenged after 30 years, barring fraud.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, through Justice Vivek Jain's Single Judge Bench, partly allowed a writ petition disputing an inquiry into a disability certificate submitted for employment 30 years prior. The court ruled that while authorities may investigate alleged forgery, they cannot challenge qualifications accepted at the time of appointment after so much time has passed, especially without specific fraud allegations.

On December 20, 2023, the Additional Collector of District Balaghat ordered an inquiry into an allegedly forged disability certificate submitted by Dharamdas Bhalekar during his 1993 service entry. The inquiry followed a complaint that the petitioner only had a 15% temporary disability at that time, rather than the required permanent disability of at least 40% as mandated by the Persons With Disabilities Act, 1995. The petitioner opposed the inquiry, arguing that State authorities should not investigate a 30-year-old certificate when he had already served 80% of his tenure and was nearing retirement. He also alleged the inquiry was driven by malice, pointing out his prior complaints against Respondent No. 6, a Department Assistant Commissioner under prosecution due to his complaints. The petitioner further claimed the complainant, Dharmendra Lilhare (Respondent No. 7), was fictitious, suggesting the complaints were anonymously created by Respondent No. 6.

The State contended that fraud negates everything, arguing that if the appointment was based on forgery, time elapsed was irrelevant and malice immaterial if fraud was involved. Reviewing the complaint, the court noted it did not claim the certificate was forged but rather indicated a temporary disability of 15%. The court highlighted the difference between accepting a non-qualifying certificate and handling a forged one. The complainant did not dispute the 15% temporary disability listed or allege the certificate was false, suggesting no clear claims of fraud or forgery.

The court observed that State authorities had knowingly appointed the petitioner in 1993 with a certificate showing 15% disability, finding no evidence of deception or fact suppression, only administrative oversight. Referring to Supreme Court rulings in Shri Krishan vs. Kurukshetra University and Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal, the court stressed that admissions without fraud or misrepresentation should not be revoked after considerable time. The court also referenced Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, affirming that mistakes not caused by appointees and cases without fraud should not lead to dismissal after long service periods.

Consequently, the court ruled that authorities cannot retrospectively question their predecessors' acceptance of qualifications after 30 years, stating that “settled things cannot be allowed to be unsettled at the drop of a hat.” Nonetheless, it allowed an inquiry solely to verify whether the certificate was issued by the proper authority. The petition was partly granted, stipulating that if the certificate was legitimately issued, no adverse action could be taken merely due to a perceived disability discrepancy at the time of hiring.