1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1958/2008 Leela Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 12th September, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Mahesh Bora, for the petitioner. Mr. B.L.Tiwari, for the respondents. .... In pursuant to notification dated 2.7.2007 the petitioner submitted an application in the prescribed proforma for consideration of her candidature against the vacancies reserved for women in OBC category for the purpose of appointment as constable in Rajasthan Police, District Jodhpur. The petitioner was declared successful in written examination and she was also permitted to face physical efficiency test as well as interview, however, her candidature was cancelled on the count that she concealed a material fact while making application for appointment regarding the criminal case relating to which she was facing trial. While challenging the decision of the respondents the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner has not given 2 details regarding criminal proceedings pending against her in the application form, however, on 7.10.2007 she submitted an affidavit wherein she made a statement with all necessary details regarding pendency of a criminal case against her and as such she was having no intention to conceal anything from knowledge of the respondents. Per contra, stand of the respondents is that the petitioner not only concealed the fact about pendency of a criminal case against her but also tried to misled the respondents by making specific denial regarding pendency of any criminal proceeding against her. It is also stated that even in the affidavit submitted on 27.10.2006 she has not given any details regarding criminal case. Counsel for the respondents has shown me a photocopy of the affidavit said to be filed on 7.10.2007. In the affidavit concerned the petitioner though has said that a case at Police Station Dangiawas is under consideration, however, at the same time she also stated that no criminal case was ever lodged against her at any police station and she is also not facing trial for criminal charges. The material concealment and an effort to misled the respondents regarding pendency of criminal case is apparent on part of the petitioner. The petitioner not only in the application for appointment made a wrong statement but also tried to misled the 3 respondents by filing quite a vague affidavit. As such the respondents rightly rejected her candidature. Hence this petition for writ is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.