Dismissed

Employees Provident Fund Organization v. Prashant Singh & Anr.

Delhi HC20 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/9668/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

EPFO cancelled a selected candidate's appointment alleging suppression of prior termination from government service. The court found the candidate had candidly disclosed service ending under Rule 5(1) CCS (Temporary Services) Rules and had produced the termination order at document verification, so no suppression occurred. It affirmed the Tribunal's decision for independent reasons.

What the court decided

AI extract

Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs Prashant Singh… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~68

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9668/2026 & CAV 321/2026, CM APPL. 44996/2026, CM APPL. 44997/2026 & CM APPL. 44998/2026

¶4

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Dushyant Parashar, Adv. with Mr. Manu Parashar, Adv.

¶7

versus

¶8

PRASHANT SINGH & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Animesh Kumar, Mr Nishant Kumar, Dr Sumit Kumar and Ms Aprajita, Advs. for R-1

¶9

Mr. Kamal Kant Jha, CGSC with Ms. Aditi Singh & Ms. Aakriti, Advs. for R-2

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

¶12

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶13

% 20.07.2026

¶14

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶15

CAV 321/2026

¶16

1. Since the respondents have entered appearance before the Court, the caveat stands discharged.

¶17

W.P.(C) 9668/2026

¶18

2. This writ petition assails order dated 16 October 2025 passed

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 9668/2026 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 4.07.2026 14:25:41

¶21

Page 1 of 7

¶22

by the Central Administrative Tribunal¹ , whereby the challenge, by Respondent 1, to communication dated 25 January 2023 issued by the Employees Provident Funds Organisation² , as corrected by subsequent order dated 6 February 2023, was accepted.

¶23

3. We may note that the only correction effected by the order dated 6 February 2023 was with respect to the name of Respondent 1 which had earlier been wrongly noted as “Prashant Kumar”, which was corrected to “Prashant Singh”.

¶24

4. The dispute relates to the selection of Respondent 1 for the post of Enforcement Officer/Accounts Officer. Respondent 1 underwent all stages of the recruitment process, which he successfully cleared. The Attestation Form, which Respondent 1 was required to submit at Stage I of the recruitment process, contained the following query:

¶25

“14(a) Are you holding or have any time held an appointment under Central or State Government or a semi-government or a quasi government body or an autonomous body or a Public Sector Undertaking or a private firm or institution? If so, give full particulars with date of employment up-to-date.”

¶26

5. In response to the said query, under the heading “Reasons for leaving previous service”, the respondent answered thus:

¶27

“Non-confirmation of probation under rule 5(1) of CCS Temporary Service Rules of 1965”

¶28

6. It is not in dispute that the actual termination order, whereby the respondent’s services had been terminated under Rule 5 of the

¶29

1 “the Tribunal” hereinafter

¶30

2 “EPFO” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 9668/2026 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 4.07.2026 14:25:41

¶31

Page 2 of 7

¶32

CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, was produced by the respondent at the Stage-II during document verification, and that it was only thereafter that the respondent was recommended for appointment at Stage III. He, thereafter, underwent medical examination on 27 December 2019, and was declared fit.

¶33

7. Despite this, no appointment letter was issued to Respondent 1, promoting him to address a representation to the petitioner, which met with no response. Respondent 1, thereupon, moved the Tribunal by way of OA 2293/2022. The Tribunal, by order dated 25 August 2022, disposed of OA 2293/2022 with a direction to the petitioner to pass a speaking order on the respondent’s representation.

¶34

8. The order dated 25 January 2023, which came to be passed by the petitioner, purportedly in compliance with the direction issued by the Tribunal, read thus:

¶35

“File no. HRM-II/22(15)17/EO-AO/DR/15783

¶36

Date: 25 JAN 2023

¶37

To,

¶38

Shri Prashant Kumar (Roll no 0321874) S/O Shri Umesh Prasad Singh 2^nd Floor, WZ-D-17B, Dayalsar Road, Uttam Nagar West New Delhi, Pin: 110059

¶39

Subject: Cancellation of candidature to the post of Enforcement Officer/Accounts Officer (EO/AO) under Direct Recruitment Cadre-regarding.”

¶40

Sir,

¶41

I am directed to inform you that while examining your documents for verification, it was observed that the fact regarding your

¶42

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 9668/2026 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 4.07.2026 14:25:41

¶43

Page 3 of 7

¶44

termination from previous employer was suppressed in your attestation forms.

¶45

In view of the above, your appointment has been cancelled by the Competent Authority. No further communication in this regard will be entertained.

¶46

(This issues with the approval of Competent Authority)

¶47

With Regards, Sd/(Uma Mand) Addl. Central P.F. Commissioner (HR)”

¶48

9. Thus, the only ground on which Respondent 1’s candidature was cancelled was that he had suppressed the fact that his services had been terminated by his previous employer.

¶49

10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Respondent 1 re-approached the Tribunal by way of OA 541/2023.

¶50

11. The Tribunal has, by judgment dated 16 October 2025, allowed the OA.

¶51

12. We are constrained to observe that the Tribunal has, in doing so, proceeded at a tangent. Instead of addressing the issue of whether the respondent could be said to have suppressed any information at the time of filling his attestation form, as would justify cancellation of his candidature, the Tribunal has, instead, allowed the OA on the ground that termination under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules does not constitute a bar to further employment.

¶52

13. This was not the issue before the Tribunal. Respondent 1’s

¶53

Signature Not Verified

¶54

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 9668/2026 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 4.07.2026 14:25:41

¶55

Page 4 of 7

¶56

candidature had not been cancelled on the ground that his earlier service had been terminated under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, but on the ground that he had concealed the fact of termination.

¶57

14. Before us, too, Mr. Dushant Parashar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that Respondent 1 had not correctly disclosed the fact relating to his termination by his earlier employer, while filling up the form for employment in the present case.

¶58

15. In this context, Mr. Dushant Parashar has drawn our attention to para 5.2 of the impugned order of the Tribunal, which observes that the respondent did not disclose the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 15 June 2017, terminating his earlier service under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules.

¶59

16. Mr. Parashar also submits that at the time of filling up the application for recruitment in the present case to the UPSC, Respondent 1 had stated that the reason for leaving his previous service was “preparation for Civil Service Examination”, which was contrary to what was stated in the attestation form filed before the EPFO, in which he had stated that he had left his previous job owing to non-confirmation of the probation under Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary Services) Rule 1965.

¶60

17. The order date 25 January 2023, whereby Respondent 1’s candidature was cancelled, specifically states the only reason of cancellation being that “the fact regarding (respondent’s) termination

¶61

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 9668/2026 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 4.07.2026 14:25:41

¶62

Page 5 of 7

¶63

from previous employer was suppressed in (the respondent’s) attestation form”.

¶64

18. In the attestation form submitted by Respondent 1 to the EPFO, Respondent 1 stated, quite candidly, that his earlier services had come to an end under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rule 1965 and his probation had not been confirmed.

¶65

19. Mr. Prashar submits that Respondent 1 did not disclose the fact that his services had been terminated.

¶66

20. We are not prepared to countenance the submission. Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rule 1965 refers exclusively to termination. The mere fact that Respondent 1 did not employ the expression “termination” and, instead, had stated that his services had been discontinued under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rule 1965 and that his probation had not been confirmed, to our mind, is merely a distinction without a difference. Once it had been acknowledged that Respondent 1’s services stood discontinued under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rule 1965, it is obvious that his service was terminated.

¶67

21. In so far as non-disclosure of the actual order of termination passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax is concerned, we have examined the attestation form and do not find any requirement, therein, which would require Respondent 1 to annex the order of termination which had been passed against him.

¶68

Signature Not Verified

¶69

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 9668/2026 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 4.07.2026 14:25:41

¶70

Page 6 of 7

¶71

22. Besides, as we have already noted, at Stage-II of the selection process, Respondent 1 had in fact produced the actual termination order which had been passed in his case.

¶72

23. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that there was any failure on the part of the respondent to disclose any information as would justify cancellation of his candidature.

¶73

24. Ergo, for the reasons stated hereinabove, which, we are aware, are distinct and different from the reasons cited by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the cancellation of Respondent 1’s candidature was not justified.

¶74

25. We, therefore, affirm the final decision of the Tribunal, albeit for reasons of our own stated hereinabove.

¶75

26. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

¶76

27. Compliance with the order passed by the Tribunal be ensured within a period of four weeks from today.

¶77

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶78

VINOD KUMAR, J.

¶79

JULY 20, 2026 dsn

¶80

Signature Not Verified

¶81

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 9668/2026 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 4.07.2026 14:25:41

¶82

Page 7 of 7

Employees Provident Fund Organization v. Prashant Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Employees Provident Fund Organization v. Prashant Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Ishwer Singh & Anr.

Sanyam Goyal Vs National Testing Agency & Ors.

Sunil Kumar Malhotra & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

M/S Sarv Priya Mahajan Co. Op Group Housing Society Vs Union of India and Ors.

Phool Chand & Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

M/S Aj Owners Vs Central Vigilance Commission & Ors.

Dinesh Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ram Veer Singh Vs Hindustan Vegetable Oil Corporation Ltd.

Union of India Vs Ishwer Singh & Anr.

Ravi Shani Vs Wasim Wire Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.

Trade 2 Online Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Kamal Kishore Aggarwal

Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Vs M/S New S.S. Enterprises & Anr.

Sonu Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Vs Arvind Rai & Anr.