CW 9396/07 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9396/07 Parsa Ram Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 17/12/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Dr. Vikram Singh Nain, for petitioner Mr. M.C. Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for State *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner seeking his fair consideration for the post of Constable in pursuance of advertisement Ann.1 dt.2nd November, 2006. Petitioner being eligible submitted application for the post of Constable in pursuance of advertisement Ann.1 dt.2nd November, 2006 and after undergoing process of selection, he was finally selected, but when he was not considered for appointment despite selection, he approached this court by filing instant petition. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition wherein it has been averred that in the year 1995 a criminal case u/ss.147, 149 & 323 IPC & Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Act was registered against the petitioner in which challan was filed CW 9396/07 [2] in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pipar on 24th July, 1995 in Criminal Case No.89/95, State Vs. Bhakhar Ram & Ors. and after regular trial, petitioner was acquitted by the competent court of jurisdiction on 11th December, 2000. This fact was suppressed by him while submitting application form in pursuance of aforesaid advertisement disclosing in Column No.17 in which the applicant was called upon to disclose with regard to any FIR ever registered or challan filed against him which he specifically mentioned 'no'. Since it was wilful suppression of material fact which the petitioner failed to disclose in his application form that dis-entitles the petitioner seeking appointment despite his final selection. Counsel for respondents placed reliance on the judgment of this court in Dharam Pal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2000 (2) WLC-400] Counsel for petitioner submits that even after registering of FIR and filing challan, acquittal order was not in his knowledge, as such, it cannot be considered to be suppression of material fact on the part of petitioner and in CW 9396/07 [3] such circumstances, he has rightly not disclosed the same in his application form which was filled in pursuance of advertisement. I have heard counsel for parties and perused the material on record. This controversy is no longer res integra in view of judgment of Larger Bench of this court in Dharam Pal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [supra] wherein it has been observed that if applicant wilfully suppresses the material fact and fails to disclose in his application form, the respondents were always justified in withholding his appointment despite final selection – relevant Para whereof is reproduced 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 CW 9396/07 [4] itself dis-entitle a candidate from being appointed in service.” The apex court considered in Delhi Admn. Vs. Sushil Kumar [(1996) 11 SCC-605] and further in recent judgment in R.Radha Krishnan Vs. DG of Police [2008 (1) SCC-660]- “3. ....The Tribunal in the impugned order allowed the application on the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 324 IPC, he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post under the State. The question is whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted.” In the instant case, from the material which came on record this remained uncontroverted that after FIR was registered against the petitioner, challan was filed and after regular trial he was acquitted on 11th December, 2000 and material fact has been wilfully suppressed while submitting his CW 9396/07 [5] application form in pursuance of advertisement Ann.1 dt.2nd November, 2006 that certainly dis- entitles him in view of judgment referred to supra seeking appointment despite his final selection. Submission made by counsel for petitioner that it was not in his knowledge, is bereft of merit, particularly, when he has been acquitted after regular trial, no adverse presumption can be drawn that a criminal case instituted was not in the knowledge of the petitioner. Consequently, this court finds no substance in the petition, the same stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA9396CW07 17-12.doc