IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13845 of 2009 RAJU PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 03.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was an applicant for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. At the stage of his character verification, he was required to fill up a form, column 7 of which questions, if he was accused in a criminal case or has undergone custody in a criminal case. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly stated though the acquittal in the criminal case was on 30.7.2008, the verification form was filled in by the petitioner prior to that date on 8.7.2008 and in which he had stated that he was not an accused in a criminal case. The submission is that consequent to his acquittal on 30.7.2008 in the criminal case the verification even if erroneous becomes irrelevant and taking a sympathetic view of the matter, the petitioner is liable to be considered for appointment as he has otherwise been found successful. The impugned order dated 9.9.2009, therefore, merits interference in light of certain orders of this Court in CWJC No. 3338 of 2009. The factual position is that prior to his exoneration in the criminal trial, the petitioner has wrongly stated in his application form that he was not an accused in a criminal case. The significance of the appointment in a uniformed disciplined force at this stage cannot be lost sight of. From the order of this 2 Court in CWJC No. 3338 of 2009, it does not appear as to what was the factual situation obtaining therein on the relevant date. An appointment secured on an erroneous declaration is liable to be set aside. Likewise, there can be no error in an order denying appointment sought on a wrong declaration made. In (2008) 1 SCC 660 (R. Radhakrishnan versus Director General of Police & ors.), the candidate was an applicant for appointment in an uniformed service. He made a wrong declaration that he was not an accused in a criminal case. Likewise, he was subsequently acquitted in the criminal trial. The Tribunal ruled in his favour that he had clearly been acquitted in the criminal case in any event. Sympathy was likewise sought to be invoked. The Supreme Court held as follows at paragraph 10 & 11 : “10. Indisputably, the appellant intended to obtain appointment in a uniformed service. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in such a service is different from the one of a person who intended to serve in other service. Application for appointment and the verification roll were both in Hindi as also in English. He, therefore, knew and understood the implication of his statement or omission to disclose a vital information. The fact that in the event such a disclosure had been made, the authority could have verified his character as also suitability of the appointment is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the persons who had not made such disclosures and were, thus, similarly situated had not been appointed. 3 11. The question came up for consideration before this court in Delhi Admn. V. Sushil Kumar, wherein it was categorically held (SCC p. 606, para 3) “3. …..The Tribunal in the impugned order allowed the application on the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and under section 324 IPC, he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post under the State. The question is whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted.” In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)