1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9686/2008 Subhash Chandra. vs. State and others. Date : 26.3.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.RC Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr.Sudhir Tak, for the respondents. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was duly selected for the post of Constable in the selections of 2008-2009. The petitioner has been denied appointment on the ground that he concealed material fact that he was accused in a criminal case inspite of the fact that in the application form itself, there was a specific column wherein all particulars with respect to all criminal cases were required to be disclosed which included even registration of a criminal case as well as filing of challan apart from the fact that whether the said candidate was arrested or not ? and whether he was convicted or not ? The petitioner in the said column put a note in negative which has been treated as that the petitioner has suppressed material fact whereas the petitioner was accused in a criminal case for committing offence under Sections 147, 341, 323, 2 336 and 427 IPC which is apparent from Annexure-1, copy of judgment dated 30.3.1998 placed by the petitioner himself and, therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to dispute that a case was registered against him and is also not in a position to state that the fact stated in the application form particularly col.15 is not correct. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was minor at the time of alleged commission of crime and that matter was compromised and the petitioner has already been acquitted. It is also submitted that the petitioner was minor which is proved from the certificate of Board of Secondary Education of the year 1997 and this fact cannot be disputed that in the year 1998, the petitioner was a minor. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in identical facts and circumstances and even for the same post of Constable, a minor was accused in a case and he could not disclose that fact in the application form and he was denied appointment then he challenged the action of the respondents by filing SB Civil Writ Petition No.3625/2008 (Subhash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) which was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 22.12.2008 after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of R. Radhakrishnan vs. Director General of Police and others reported 3 in 2008(1) SCC 660. The said writ petition was allowed after considering the facts of the case which are identical to the facts of the case. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in R.Radhakrishnan's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that the concealment of material facts itself is sufficient for denial of appointment. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. This fact cannot be disputed that the petitioner's date of birth is 18.7.1983 and FIR was lodged on 12.11.1997. At this juncture, it will be worthwhile to mention here that the criminal case was decided by the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria and was not decided by the Juvenile Court. It appears that it was because of the reason that compromise was filed and that issue was not raised that the petitioner was minor at that time. Be it as it may be, from the certificate of Board of Secondary Education, it is clear that the petitioner's date of birth is 18.7.1983 only and at the time of alleged commission of offence, he was of the age of 14 years only. He was acquitted in the year 1998 and he took part in the selections for Constable in 4 the year 2008 i.e. after ten years and if in that fact situation, the petitioner did not disclose the fact that he was accused in the criminal case, than that may be because of the fact that the petitioner might have forget it and that fact if will be taken against the petitioner then that will be more harmful because of the reason that if a person is denied job because of this reason, then certainly, it will have more adverse affect upon the entire future of the candidates. It is true that suppressing material fact by the candidate is a serious matter and cannot be taken lightly but at the same time, it is required to be seen that what rigidity should be adhered to that type of conduct and reality and the consequences are required to be taken into account. This Court in the case of Subhash Chand (supra) after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and after taking note of the fact that in that case, the candidate faced criminal case just before the process of selection, therefore, the case of Subhash Chand will not cover the issue involved in the present case. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed, the order dated 17.9.2008 (Annex.8) is quashed and set aside with the direction to the respondents to proceed with the process of appointment of the petitioner and accord him appointment if he is otherwise qualified. The 5 process be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya