CW-13135/10 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13135/2010 Govind Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date Of Order :: 26/11/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Achintya Kaushik, for petitioner. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dt.28.05.2008 whereby the respondents declined to consider his case for appointment on the post of Constable (Driver) on the premise that he concealed material fact while filling his application form pursuant to advertisement dt.15.09.2007 (Annx.2) that there was a criminal case at one stage instituted against him in which he has been held guilty, however granted benefit of probation U/Ss. 3 & 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioner pursuant to advertisement (Annx.2) submitted his application form for the post of Constable (Driver) in Police Service. Indisputably, in the application form submitted by him it was to be disclosed (column-17) that any criminal case has even been instituted or pending against him and the fate of the criminal case CW-13135/10 (2) if instituted and the petitioner indisputably did not disclose about the criminal case instituted against him u/s.143, 341, 323 & 336 IPC. However, he was was granted benefit of probation U/Ss.3 & 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. After his final selection at the stage of police verification it came to the knowledge of the respondents that in a criminal case instituted against him he was held guilty. However, benefit u/s.12 was granted to him but taking note of material concealment he was informed vide communication dt.28.05.2008 declining to grant appointment despite being selected as Constable (Driver). Counsel submits that since he has been granted benefit of probation u/s.12 of the Act and even if he has not disclosed about the criminal case being registered against him, in itself will not deprive the petitioner from seeking final appointment despite being selected and it cannot be considered to be material concealment attached to the act of moral turpitude which may create any impediment in seeking employment. The submission made is without substance for the reason that the larger Bench CW-13135/10 (3) of this Court in Dharam Pal Singh & 4 Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and others [2000 (2) WLC(Raj.) page 400] has finally observed in para 26 of the judgment as under :- “26. In the light of the facts stated and the discussion made above, we answer the questions 1 to 3 aforementioned as follows : 1. That a candidate was prosecuted or subjected to investigation on a criminal charge is a material fact, suppression of which, would entitle an employer to deny employment to a candidate on that ground. 2. That ultimate acquittal of a candidate, who was prosecuted on a criminal charge, would not condone or wash out the consequences of suppression of the fact that he was prosecuted. 3. That suppression of material fact would be itself dis-entitles a candidate from being appointed in service.” In the light of larger Bench judgment referred to supra, the applicant if has concealed or has not disclosed about a criminal case being instituted against him at the time of submitting application form has CW-13135/10 (4) concealed material fact which can be considered to be a ground for the employer to decline to grant appointment despite being finally selected. Taking note of the judgment of the larger Bench, no case for interference is made out. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi),J VS Shekhawat /p.4/ 13135cw10Nov26FnlDsps.doc