1 S/11 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3725/2007 [SHANKAR LAL VS. STATE & ORS.] Dated : 27.02.2008 HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. Ms.Nupur Bhati for the petitioner. Mr.Shyam Ladrecha,Dy.G.A.. ***** The petitioner has preferred this writ petition on account of denial of appointment on the post of constable. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent on 14.06.2005, the petitioner had submitted an application for consideration of his candidature for the post of constable and thereupon permission card was issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter appeared in the written examination wherein having obtained the requisite marks he was finally called for physical test/interview on 24.03.2006. The interview of the petitioner was held on a subsequent date because of the petitioner's ailment, however, finally petitioner's name find place at No.111 in the merit list but then appointment was not offered on the ground that petitioner had supressed the fact pertaining to the order passed in a Criminal Case No. 222/2001. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner it was only omission to disclose such fact otherwise even as per the Rules, the petitioner was not 2 disqualified for being appointed. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the petitioner has suppressed the fact regarding the order passed in the Criminal Case No.222/2001 thus on account of suppression he is not entitle to get the appointment not only in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court but also the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein the issue regarding suppression of criminal case was taken into consideration and therein it was held that suppression of a material fact disentitle the candidate to seek benefit of appointment. The copy of the judgment reported in (2008) 1 SCC 660 has been placed before me wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had even considered earlier judgments on the issue. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, the petitioner cannot be granted benefit of appointment as he had suppressed fact pertaining to the criminal case No.222/2001. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J. mamta