{ 1 } S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.374/2007 AMIT YADAV VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. DATE OF ORDER : 26.10.2009. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Sanjeet Purohit for the petitioner. Mr. I.S. Pareek } Mr. Manoj Purohit } for the respondents. Mother of the petitioner, while serving the respondents as Constable died on 01.10.2004, therefore, an application was submitted by him seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, as per the provisions of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short “the Rules of 1996). Suffice it to mention here that prior to death of the petitioner's mother, his brother Anusachin was murdered on 29.06.2004 and then a case was registered at the instance of Om Prakash – an accused in murder case of deceased Anusachin against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 336 IPC with the allegation that on 29.06.2004 at the time of carrying body of deceased Anusachin for funeral, the petitioner and 2-3 other persons, threw stones at his residence. The consideration on application submitted by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds was deferred till disposal of the trial pending against him for the { 2 } offences punishable under Section 336 IPC. The petitioner after acquittal from the charge punishable under Section 336 IPC vide judgment dated 12.07.2006, again approached to the respondents to consider his case for appointment as per provisions of the Rules of 1996. The petitioner at his own served a copy of the judgment dated 12.07.2006 upon the competent authority. The case of the petitioner, then was forwarded to the Police Head Qtrs. by the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur City and by acting upon that, the Inspector General of Police (Head Qtr.), Rajasthan, Jaipur vide communication dated 31.08.2006 held the petitioner not eligible to be considered for appointment in government service, as he was prosecuted for a criminal offence. Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, this petition for writ is preferred. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a person otherwise eligible, cannot be denied appointment to the service merely on the count that he faced prosecution. It is also stated that the denial for appointment to the petitioner on a ground that is not prescribed as ineligibility under the relevant Rules. Per contra, stand of the respondents is that the petitioner made a wrong statement in a verification role while answering a { 3 } query under its para 15. thus he concealed a material fact regarding his prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 336 IPC, and that made him ineligible for appointment. Heard learned counsel for the parties. As per communication dated 31.08.2006 (Annexure 8), the reason for not treating the petitioner eligible for appointment in government service is that he was prosecuted for a criminal offence. No other reason than above is given by the respondents while rejecting candidature of the petitioner, and the statement made by the respondents in reply to the writ petition regarding wrong statement in verification role, was not a reason for rejecting the petitioner's application submitted under the Rules of 1996. It is well settled that by submitting reply or by submission of additional affidavits, additional reasons cannot be supplied to impugned order. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in AIR 1952 SC -16 and also in Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi reported in AIR 1978 SC – 851, in most unambiguous terms held that validity of an order is required to be examined on basis of the reasons mentioned therein and not for the grounds supplemented subsequently by way of filing reply or the { 4 } additional affidavits. In view of it, validity of the order dated 31.08.2006 is required to be examined only on the count that whether denial of appointment to the petitioner on the ground that he was prosecuted for criminal charges is just and proper? It is not in dispute that the petitioner possess requisite eligibility to be considered for appointment as Lower Division Clerk under the relevant Rules, those are Rajasthan Subordinate Services (Ministerial Service) Rules, 1999. The petitioner may have faced a trial for offence punishable under Section 336 IPC, but mere prosecution for such an offence cannot be a reason to deny consideration for appointment. Such a consideration can be denied only if the rules provides for that; or the person concerned may be suffering from an ineligibility prescribed under the Rules and that is not the case of the respondents. As such the denial of consideration for appointment on the compassionate grounds for the reason given is apparently bad. As I said earlier, the denial for any other reason except the reason given under the communication Annexure 8 is not required to be examined, but looking to the fact that a specific statement is made by the respondents regarding an information given by the petitioner in verification roll and that issue is joined by the petitioner, I consider it appropriate to examine validity of { 5 } same. While examining a case for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court may deny to exercise its discretion, if the person applying for writ, order or direction, conceals a material fact from the Court or in any manner his conduct is not found fair, including the conduct while claiming for some right from the authority concern. The concealment of relevant material is part of conduct, thus, that can be very well taken into consideration by the court as well as by the authority competent. It is open for the Court to examine intensity of the conduct of the person applying for writ and also thats consequent. If the conduct of the person concerned including the concealment made is not of such a nature that would have otherwise made the person ineligible from getting the right claimed or the fact said to be concealed was already in knowledge of the authority competent, then it can be said that such conduct or concealment is not material to deny the right established. In the present case, from inception, the respondents were knowing that the petitioner was facing a criminal trial, thus, consideration on his application was deferred. It was the petitioner, who conveyed the respondents regarding his acquittal by a competent court from the criminal charges. As such, neither I find any deliberate attempt on part of the { 6 } petitioner to mislead the respondents to get appointment on compassionate grounds nor he can be held guilty of concealment of material fact. For the reasons stated above, I am inclined to accept this petition for writ, therefore, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as per provisions of the Rules of 1996. Such consideration is required to be made as expeditiously as possible at the most within a period of six months from today. No order to cost. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/