IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 23130 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 23, 2010 Laxman Dass …Petitioner Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench Chandigarh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against judgment dated 26.8.2010 (P-10) rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), holding that the action of the respondent is wholly justified when it refused to appoint the petitioner on the post of Constable in the Police Department, U.T. Chandigarh. 2. The basic reason for denying him the appointment was that he failed to disclose in reply to Column 11 in the standard proforma that he was involved in a criminal case which required him to give the details of the same. However, he preferred to write word ‘No’ in front of column No. 11. Likewise, in column No. 12 the information sought was whether he has ever been convicted or acquitted by Court of any offence and full particulars thereof were required to be given. Against the said Column No. 12, he again wrote ‘No’. 3. The Tribunal has dismissed the original application by placing C.W.P. No. 23130 of 2010 reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar, 1997 SCC (L&S) 492. It has been held therein that although the petitioner is found physically fit who have also passed written and interview test. He was provisionally selected. However, on account of his conduct in concealing vital information, he was denied the appointment. It has further been held in Sushil Kumar (supra) that what would be relevant is conduct and character of the candidate to be appointed to the service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant in such a case is concerning antecedents of a candidate. Therefore, the appointing authority in the present case has rightly found it undesirable to appoint such a person to service. 4. Having heard learned counsel we are of the considered view that no interference in the order passed by the Tribunal would be warranted. The writ petition does not merit admission and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) December 23, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2