IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18038 of 2010 Kalamudin Miya . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Onkar Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Navjot Yeshu, Adv. For the Commission :- Mr. S.S. Sundaram, Adv. For the State :- Mr. Maheshwar Dhar Dwivedi ---------- 5. 25.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as the „Commission‟). The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Sub Inspector in the State Police under Advertisement No. 704 of 2004. Despite having been selected he has been denied appointment by order dated 16.9.2010 on the ground that though acquitted in trial he had furnished wrong information in column 7 of the police verification form concealing that he was a named and charge sheeted accused released on bail in Baniyapur P.S. Case No. 11 of 1998 under Sections 323, 337, 341, 447 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Baniyapur P.S. Case No. 118 of 1999 under Sections 323, 379, 386/147 of the Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both cases arose out of petty village disputes 2 and not professional criminal activities. In both cases, acquittal was ordered on 30.7.2002 and 29.8.2003 respectively even before the publication of the advertisement. The petitioner bona fide believed that after acquittal on basis of compromise the burden and stigma no more attached to him and he stood on a clean slate. The information was no more relevant. Reliance was placed on (2011) 4 SCC 644 (Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar) to support the submissions. Learned counsel for the State urged that the issue was one of wrong declarations made for the purpose of appointment. The bona fide beliefs were not relevant. If he was desirous for appointment in the Police, a disciplined service, it was his duty to make correct disclosures and leave the facts for the respondents to decide whether it was a disqualification or not. This Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13845 of 2009 (Raju Prasad Vs. State of Bihar) had declined relief in similar circumstances. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. There can be no generalized propositions with regard to any alleged misrepresentation for appointment. The factual background, the stage at which the representations was made, whether it was 3 intentionally or under a bona fide mis-conceived belief are all relevant. A case of intentional misrepresentation coupled with an inherent disqualification integral to the misrepresentation shall be entirely different. In the case of Raju Prasad (supra), on the date that the petitioner had filled up the Police Verification Form stating that he was not an accused, he was in fact an accused, and the acquittal had followed subsequently. The imputation was for a deliberate misrepresentation of fact. The relief was pressed on sympathy. This Court relying on (2008) 1 SCC 660 (R. Radhakrishnan Vs. Director General of Police) declined interference in the writ petition. The case is clearly distinguishable on its facts. In Sandeep Kumar (supra) the respondent had stated that he had not been convicted by a Court of law in the relevant column of the Police Verification Form. He was involved in a criminal case of a family feud under Section 325/34 of the Penal Code which was compromised on 18.1.1998 and acquitted. The advertisement for the post of Head Constable was published in January, 1999 and application submitted on 24.2.1999. Show cause 4 notice was issued for cancellation of the appointment for having been obtained by misrepresentation after considering which the appointment was cancelled. Invoking the principle of reformative jurisprudence the Supreme Court held as follows:- “12. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified.” In (2008) 3 SCC 222 (State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar), the respondents were candidates for appointment as a Constable Drivers in the Haryana Police. In the Police Verification Form whether they had ever been arrested or convicted they stated „No‟. Subsequently it transpired that they had been released on bail and subsequently acquitted. Their services were terminated for submission of wrong information denying arrest. The Supreme Court on consideration of the matter held at Paragraph-31 as follows:- “31 ……………We would, in the facts of these cases, give the benefit of a mistaken impression, rather than that of deliberate and wilful misrepresentation and concealment of facts………..” 5 The petitioner was not involved in any professional criminal activities. The cases were the outcome of petty village disputes which ended in a compromise. The acquittal was even before the advertisement. The bona fide belief, as a layman not familiar with legal niceties, after acquittal by a competent Court, that the stigma or burden did not attach to him any more requiring him to make subsequent disclosure cannot be rejected as fanciful or deliberate. It would undoubtedly have been proper for him to have made the disclosure and leave the rest to the respondents. But in the facts of the present case the Court holds that it was not a deliberate misrepresentation made with intention to mislead rather it was a bona fide act in a wrong belief. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that another applicant Shree Nagina Kumar, who was sought to be denied appointment on similar grounds has subsequently been granted appointment by letter No. 4165/P-2 dated 11.10.2011 issued by the Director General of Police. Though the Commission has no locus after the recommendation made by it, the Court does not find substance in the limited submission on behalf of 6 the Commission that in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) the error had been pointed out by the candidate himself. The ratio of a judgment has to be read and understood in its entirety and not by culling out lines from the same torn out of context. Reference may usefully be made to (2006) 1 SCC 275 (State of Orissa v. Mohd. Illiyas) :- “12……It is not everything said by a Judge while giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi. According to the well- settled theory of precedents, every decision contains three basic postulates: (i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A decision is an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically flows from the various observations made in the judgment. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. A case is a precedent and binding for what it explicitly decides and no more. The words used by Judges in their judgments are not to be read as if they are words in an Act of Parliament…..” 7 The order dated 16.9.2010 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Director General of Police to reconsider expeditiously the candidature for appointment in light of the discussions contained in the present order. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)