IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.20030 of 2009 Between: K.Lalaji Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.20030 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The petitioner is the applicant in O.A.1651/2008 on the file of the A.P.Administative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) and he filed the said O.A. to declare the action of the respondents in not considering his representation dated 20.02.2008 to appoint him to the post of Police Constable, APSP as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to consider his representation dated 20.02.2008. 2. The petitioner was selected as Police Constable, APSP, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District and he was successfully participated in the selection and recruitment process and his name was also mentioned in the selection list. However, he was not sent for the police training course on the ground that he was suppressed the fact of his involvement in Cr.No.65/2004 of Yemmiganur Rural Police Station under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. It is stated that as he was not sent for police training along with other provisionally selected candidates, he made a representation dated 20.02.2008 before the respondents requesting them to consider his case and send him to police training, but no action was taken. Therefore, he was constrained to approach the Tribunal by filing O.A.1651/2008. It is further stated that the petitioner earlier filed O.A.6291/2004 for the self-same relief. The said O.A.6291/2004 was dismissed on 23.11.2005. 3. The Tribunal, on 19.11.2004, while admitting the O.A.6291/2004, passed an interim order directing the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool to send the petitioner for the Police Training Course of 9 months along with other selected candidates, subject to the condition that the petitioner gives an undertaking to the Superintendent of Police that in case if he is convicted, he would abide the decision of his discharge from service. It is not in dispute that even pursuant to the interim order, as above, he was not sent to the Police Training Course and after filing the counter and vacate stay petition, the O.A.6291/2004 was dismissed by order dated 23.11.2005. 4. It is stated that the criminal case allegedly pending against the petitioner in Cr.No.65/2004 of Yemmiganur Rural P.S. was ended in acquittal by judgment dated 03.04.2006 in S.C.21/2004 on the file of the Addl.District Judge, Adoni. After his acquittal in the said criminal case, the petitioner made representation dated 20.02.2008, referred to above, and later filed O.A.1651/2008. 5. The Tribunal dismissed the present O.A.1651/2008 by order dated 04.03.2009 on the ground that the earlier O.A.6291/2004 filed by the petitioner was dismissed, and that apart, the petitioner knowing fully well that the criminal case was pending against him by the date of submission of the application form and attestation form, did not mention about the same in both the application form and in the attestation form deliberately and did not divulge the information in Column No.24 of the application form and Column No.12 of the attestation form. The Tribunal further observed that the petitioner has also gave an undertaking in both the forms that the information given in the relevant columns of forms is true and correct and that he is aware that his employment would be liable for termination if the information furnished by him is found wrong or found that he has suppressed any information. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A.1651/2008. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition contending that he along with two other candidates viz., (1) Chakali Bhaskar and (2) Perumalla Seshanna are provisionally selected for the post of APSP Police Constables. Similarly, the said two persons were also found guilty of suppression of fact about their involvement in criminal cases and their appointments were cancelled. The said two persons are also filed O.As.6762/2004 and 6763/2004 respectively before the Tribunal and obtained interim orders and pursuant to the interim orders they were sent for police training course. The respondents have not filed any vacate stay petition in those two O.As, but filed vacate stay petition in the earlier O.A.6291/2004 filed by the petitioner and got vacated the interim order. 7. It is stated that the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.85 Home (Legal-II) Department dated 07.02.2009 with regard to relaxation of rules in favour of the candidates who suppressed the facts with regard to their previous or present employment, as required under Rule-3(G)(i) of Andhra Pradesh (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 and therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of the said G.O. 8. We have perused the G.O.Ms.No.85. The said G.O. was issued specifying a special relaxation to appoint the selected candidates of Notification dated 19.03.2008 who have suppressed the information with regard to their previous employment, subject to the condition that an affidavit/undertaking of their previous employment be taken from those candidates that they are honourably discharged from the previous service and the concealment of fact does not jeopardize the interest of Government at any point of time, and if anything adverse comes to the notice of Government, they shall be liable for necessary action. The said G.O. was issued giving special relaxation to the candidates who have suppressed the information regarding to their previous employment, but not to the candidates who have suppressed the information regarding to their involvement in criminal cases. Thus, the said G.O. is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. 9. Admittedly, in the instant case, the criminal case was pending against the petitioner as on the date of filing the application form as well as attestation form. Therefore, there was a clear suppression of fact of his involvement in criminal case. The relevant column in the application form is as follows: “Whether you had been involved in any criminal case and arrested by police. Have you ever been prosecuted or convicted in the past or facing trial in any case?” The relevant column in the attestation form is as follows: “Have you ever been arrested by the Police, convicted by a Court or detained of any offence?” In the said relevant columns, the petitioner has not furnished any information about his involvement in criminal case and suppressed the said fact. 10. In so far as the other two candidates viz., (1) Chakali Bhaskar and (2) Perumalla Seshanna, the learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, submits that they have also not been sent for police training course. 11. The Tribunal, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.P.Public Service Commission vs. Koneti Venkateswarlu and others[1], dismissed the O.A.1651/2008. 12. This Court also considered the similar issues where the applicants have furnished negative information in appropriate columns of application form as well as attestation form in the case of K.Vijaya Lakshmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[2] and Additional Dy.Inspector General of Police, Hyd. V. Ashok Kumar[3] and this Court while dismissing the said two writ petitions clearly observed that failure of the candidates to divulge information with regard to their involvement in criminal cases, would reflect on their character and antecedents, notwithstanding their subsequent acquittal therein, and such candidates who fails to divulge material information, be it intentional or otherwise, must necessarily face the consequences of such action. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not see any error committed by the Tribunal in dismissing the O.A.1651/2008. The writ petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ___________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J Dated: 21.10.2009 Dsr [1] (2005) 7 SCC 177 [2] 2009(3) ALD 168 (DB) [3] 2009(4) ALD 600 (DB)