CW 5596/06 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5596/06 Parbhu Lal Meena Versus Director General of Police & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 21/11/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Miss Ashish Joshi, for petitioner *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner seeking his fair consideration for appointment for the post of Constable in pursuance of advertisement issued by the respondents Ann.1 dt.15th July, 2005. Petitioner after undergoing process of selection for the post of Constable was finally selected. However, on police verification, it revealed that a criminal case was registered against him at Police Station Piplu District Tonk in which challan was filed. However, later on, it was decided on the basis of compromise. Respondents have placed on record along with reply a photostat copy of application form [Ann.R/1] filed by petitioner whereby petitioner CW 5596/06 [2] was called upon to disclose as to whether any criminal case was ever registered against him or challan has been filed or punished. In both the two columns i.e. 17.1 & 17.2 despite criminal case being registered and challan was also filed against him. Still he mentioned “no” in both the two columns which according to the respondents was material concealment and suppression of fact made by him which dis-entitles him from being considered for appointment. Full Bench of this court in Dharam Pal Singh & 4 Ors. Vs. Stat of Rajasthan & Ors. [2000 (2) WLC-400] has considered the same issue and finally held that if the applicant has concealed material information by not disclosing the institution of criminal case, if any, registered against him, the authority was justified in declining him from consideration for appointment – relevant part where of reproduced as under: “In the light of the facts stated and the discussion made above, we answer the questions 1 to 3 aforementined 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 CW 5596/06 [3] 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. The suppression of material fact would be itself disentitles a candidate from being appointed in service.” It has also been considered by apex court recently in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav [(2003) 3 SCC-437]. In the instant case, petitioner indisputably has suppressed material fact and failed to disclose information as referred to in Para 17.1 & 17.2 of the application form which dis-entitles him seeking appointment in the light of judgment [supra]. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA5596CW06 21-11.doc