CW 9435/06 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9435/06 Kailash Chand Verma Versus UOI & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 10/09/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Hanuman Choudhary, for petitioner Miss Sonal Singh for Mr. G.C. Garg, for respondents *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order dt.17th October, 2006 [Ann.4] whereby on account of police verification which came adverse to him he has been denied appointment despite selection for the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force, which was advertised vide Employment Notice No.1/04 dt.9th March, 2005. Petitioner being eligible submitted application and was allotted Roll No.180583 and participated in the written test and interview held by the respondent authorities. However, condition was stipulated that his participation in the selection process will be subject to outcome of medical test and police verification. After qualifying the medical examination, petitioner was served with a letter dt.25th August, 2005 informing that he has been selected CW 9435/06 [2] for the post of Constable and directed to report to the office of respondent No.3. On police verification, adverse report was received in the office of respondents and petitioner was communicated vide Ann.4 dt.17th October, 2006 rejecting his candidature on the premise that he has concealed material fact from the authorities while submitting application about criminal case being instituted against him in which he was convicted and non disclosure of same was considered to be fatal which dis-entitles him from being considered for appointment. A bare look to the application form submitted by petitioner [Ann.1] in clause 1(b) declaration has to be made by the applicant that if there is any information which later on found to be incorrect, without affording opportunity, services could be terminated by the concerned authority and in addition to it, Clause 16 discloses that if he has ever been arrested or convicted in criminal case, if any, instituted against him and at the time of making further declaration, copy of which has been placed on record by the respondents along with reply Ann.R3/1. Clause 12(a)(b) which are relevant for the purpose of calling upon the applicant to CW 9435/06 [3] disclose have he ever been prosecuted and bound down by submitting bond to the competent court of jurisdiction. In both the two columns and so also column 16 of the application form petitioner has mentioned “no”. Police verification was made and report was received from concerned authority. Its' perusal disclosed that a criminal case bearing No.127/03 for offence u/ss.341 & 323 IPC was registered against the petitioner on 26th September, 2003. Charge sheet bearing No.75/03 was filed against him on 11th October, 2003 in which he was finally held guilty, but was given benefit of probation u/s.4 of Probation of Offenders Act by the order of learned trial Judge dt.24th July, 2004 and since there was material concealment made by petitioner despite being called upon to disclose in the application form dis-entitles him to consider for appointment vide order Ann.4 dt.17th October, 2006. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner could not make distinction between the term convicted and sentenced and the matter where once has been convicted and no sentence has been awarded in extending the benefit of probation and on account of this bonafide error did not disclose the fact while submitting application CW 9435/06 [4] form and so also at the stage of declaration and for this bonafide mistake he should not be deprived of his livelihood to which he is entitled for U/A.21 of the Constitution of India. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition where it has been averred that since petitioner has concealed material fact by not disclosing about criminal case being instituted against him which dis-entitles from seeking appointment. It also goes contrary to the declaration made by the petitioner about the fact that if any wrong information is furnished, his selection shall be cancelled and accordingly, counsel submits that taking note of character verification report disclosed about criminal case instituted against the petitioner was taken to be a basis to deny appointment to him. In support of her submission, counsel placed reliance on Full Bench decision of this court in Dharam Pal Singh & 4 Ors. Vs. Stat of Rajasthan & Ors. [2000 (2) WLC-400] and so also of apex court in R. Radhakrishnan Vs. The Director General Police & Ors. [2008 (1) SLR-655]. I have considered the submission made by counsel for parties and perused the material on record. CW 9435/06 [5] This fact remained uncontroverted that criminal case was instituted against the petitioner in 2003 u/ss.341 & 323 IPC in which he was finally held guilty and convicted by the competent court of jurisdiction vide judgment dt.24th July, 2004. However, grant of benefit of probation u/s.4 of Probation of Offenders Act much before application form was filled by the petitioner participating for the post of Constable in pursuance of his selection initiated by the respondents in 2005. In opinion of this court, the act of the petitioner is certainly a material concealment on his part and taking note of declaration made by him while submitting application form respondents were justified in taking decision declining him to be considered for appointment while passing order Ann.4 dt.17th October, 2006. In Dharam Pal Singh & 4 Ors. Vs. Stat of Rajasthan & Ors. [supra] Full Bench of this court 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 CW 9435/06 [6] 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 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.” This has also been considered by the apex court in recent judgment reported in R. Radhakrishnan Vs. The Director General Police & Ors. [supra]- relevant part whereof is reproduced as under: “Indisputably, appellant intended to obtain appointment in a uniformed service. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in such a service is different from the one of a person who intended to serve other services. Application for appointment and the verification roll were both in Hindi as also in English. He, therefore, knew and understood the implication of his statement or CW 9435/06 [7] omission to disclose a vital information. The fact that in the event such a disclosure had been made, the authority could have verified his character as also suitability of the appointment is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the persons who had made such disclosures and were, thus, similarly situated had not been appointed.” “In the instant case, indisputably, the appellant had suppressed a material fact. In a case of this nature, we are of the opinion that question of exercising an equitable jurisdiction in his favour would not arise.” In the light of judgment [supra], this court does not find error committed by the respondents in rejecting his candidature vide order Ann.4 dt.17th October, 2006. Consequently, I find no force in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA9435CW06 10-9.doc