CWP 570/2K //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.570/2000 Dalip Singh Versus State & Anr Date of Order ::: 24/03/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. DV Tholia ) Mr. Manish Choudhary ) for petitioner Mr. Vijay Dutt, Dy.Govt. Advocate for respondents Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that despite being selected for the post of police constable, on his name being found place in the merit list, still appointment has been denied by respondents while at the same time persons lower in merit got their appointment. Advertisement was published inviting applications for the post of police constable with the last date (24/10/98) – with reference thereto, petitioner filled up his application form (Ann.R.1) on 13/10/98. Written test was held on 25/07/99 while physical efficiency test & interview on 14/10/99; and after selection, persons lower in merit got appointment, therefore, petitioner has approached this Court by instant petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that merely because FIRs were registered against him more so when none of FIRs are related to moral turpitude within parameter of Rule 15 of CWP 570/2K //2// Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 which pertains about character of applicant, in no manner dis-entitles him from seeking appointment; as such denial of appointment despite being found place in merit list is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. Respondents have filed reply more particularly in para 4, inter-alia averred that four FIRs were got registered against instant petitioner at different points of time and to be more specific, all the FIRs – reference whereof have been made therein, were of date prior to which he filled up application form on 13/10/98. It has further been averred that in Col.17 of his application form, applicant (petitioner) was under obligation to disclose as to whether he is facing criminal trial or if he has faced trial earlier, what was its final fate; but in application form furnished by him, all such informations asked for in Col. 17, were not disclosed, which was considered to be suppression of material fact on the part of applicant (petitioner) – as a result whereof, was not considered fit for appointment despite being found place in merit list. As regards submission of respondent's Counsel about suppression of material fact, which CWP 570/2K //3// he was under obligation to disclose in Col.17 of application form, and which dis-entitled for appointment, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of this Court in Dharampal Singh Vs. State (2000(3) RLR 728). This Court has considered contentions of the parties and with their assistance examined material on record. Col.17 of application form (Ann.R.1) read ad infra: 17- ूाथȸ यǑद अपरािधक ूकरण मɅ समबƨ रहा हो का ǒववरण - (क) È या ूाथȸ Ǒकसी अपरािधक मुकदमɅ मɅ िलÜ त है या रहा है - यǑद हां तो ǒववरण देवे - - - - (ख) È या ूाथȸ Ǒकसी मुकदमɅ मɅ िगरफतार हआ है ु - - - - यǑद हां तो ǒववरण देवे - - - - (ग) È या ूाथȸ को Ǒकसी मुकदमɅ मɅ सजा ूाÜ त हई है ु - - - - यǑद हां तो ǒववरण देवे - - - - As per Col.17 (supra), when applicant (petitioner) was required to disclose about any criminal case registered, and what was its fate, but Col.17 was left blank bu putting “X” marks as if not applicable so far as petitioner is concerned. Even at the bottom of application form, it has been declared by him that if any information made available by him in his application form is found as incorrect, administrative action can also be taken against him. All the FIRs registered against him are of much prior to the date of receipt of application form on 13/10/98 (Ann.R.1), which clearly discloses that petitioner has suppressed material facts while submitting his application form CWP 570/2K //4// (Ann.R.1) particularly in Col.17 (supra). This Court (Full Bench) in Dharampal Singh Vs. State (supra) observed that if applicant has suppressed material information or wrong information has been submitted in Col.17, it empowers the authority to deny appointment. Relevant observations are ad infra: “14. In this view, suppression of material information or furnishing it wrongly in column No.17 of the form is a vital factor, which goes against the candidate. Rule 15 of the Rules empowers the authorities to deny appointment or debar such candidate for admission to any examination of appearance at any interview either permanently or for specified period. A careful reading of Rule 15 shows that suppressing material information is itself sufficient to deny employment without anything more; in other words, it is not required that suppression of material should be deliberate or wilful. Further, by the combined reading of Rules 13, 15 and the Circular dated 29/04/1995, there can be no doubt that appointment could be denied on the ground of suppression of material information, which was other wise required for judging the suitability and desirability of a candidate for direct recruitment in the police department. The information relating to involvement of a candidate in criminal case is specifically sought CWP 570/2K //5// in column No.17 of the application form. If it is not furnished, the candidate takes the consequences of denial of appointment to him.” In view of judgment (supra), in considered opinion of this Court, act of petitioner for having suppressed material facts from the employer, dis-entitles him to seek employment and this Court does not find any justification to call for interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed alongwith stay petition. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.5/570CWP2K.doc