IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.10198 of 2008 Between: C. Chinna Venkat Ramudu S/o.C. Chinna Venkatesu R/o. Thimmana Cheruvu, Jutur Post, Peddapapur Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Inspector General of Police Anantapur Range, Anantapur. 2 The Deputy Inspector General of Police Kurnool Region, Kurnool. 3 The State Level Police Recruitment Board, A.P. Hyderabad, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records in OA No. 6143/2007 registered on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad and set aside the order dt. 1-2-2008 passed by A.P. Administrative Tribunal and pass Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.GOPALA KRISHNA KALANIDHI Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.10198 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to set aside the order dated 01-02-2008 passed in O.A.No.6143 of 2007 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner, who was provisionally selected as Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police, AR (Men), was not sent for training along with other selected candidates. Hence, he filed O.A. assailing the action of official respondents in not sending him for training. According to the petitioner, he was tried in S.C.No.65 of 1998 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty, Anantapur, and after full trial, he was acquitted vide judgment dated 18-5-1998. The official respondents cancelled the provisional selection of the petitioner on the ground that he suppressed the information with regard to his involvement in criminal case both in the application form and also attestation form by invoking Rule 3 (G) (i) of Andhra Pradesh Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that merely because he stated ‘No’ in the columns as to whether he was prosecuted/convicted, it will not amount to suppression of information as the petitioner was ultimately acquitted of the offences. 4. It is seen from the impugned order that the Tribunal has elaborately dealt with the matter including the details of crime and the nature of offences. The Tribunal has also considered the aspect of non- disclosure of involvement in criminal cases and passed the impugned order following the various judgments including the decisions of the Supreme Court in APPSC Vs. KONETI VENKATESWARLU [1] and SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, A.P. Vs. B.CHINNAM NAIDU [2]. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner has not disclosed about his involvement in the crimes or the trial in a Sessions Case either in the Application Form or Attestation Form. It is thus a clear case of wilful suppression of material information by the candidate even before joining the service. In the circumstances, the official respondents have rightly cancelled the provisional selection of the petitioner according to the said Rules. In the circumstances, the impugned order is not liable for interference. 5. The writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 16-06-2008 bsc ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} [1] (2005) 7 SCC 177 [2] (2005) 2 SCC 746