IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11254 of 2009 Between: CH. Janardhan S/o. Late CH. Ramulu R/o. H.No. 4-185, Venkata Ramana Colony, Ibrahimpatnam Village & Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 State Level Police Recruitment Board Rep. by its Chairman Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. (Local of Ranga Reddy) .....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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and call for the records pertains to O.A.No. 5935/2009 dt. 27-5-2009 passed by A.P. Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and quash the same in dismissing the O.A.No.5935/2009 dt. 27-5-2009 and in not granting the relief to the applicant / Petitioner for not directing the respondents for sending the applicant / Petitioner for Police Constable Training in Pursuance of P.C. - 2008 results wherein the applicant / Petitioner was qualified and in view of ended in acquittal of the petitioner in C.C.No.660/2006 dt. 17-5-2008 by the competent Criminal Court i.e. IV Metropolitan Magistrate Ibrahimpatnam, R.R. District Under Sections 448, 325 and R/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and not recording the contents of column 24 in old Police Constable Recruitment application form - 2008 where to provide information in regard to pendency of any Criminal Case and in deleting the said column in the new application form of Police Constable Recruitment application is discrimination, illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and clauses (1) and (2) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents herein to send the applicant / Petitioner for Police Constable Training in pursuance of P.C. Recruitment - 2008 results forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SADURAJESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : ORDER: (Sri V.Eswaraiah, J.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. The petitioner filed O.A.No.5935 of 2009 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, to declare the action of the 2nd respondent, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (Local of Ranga Reddy) represented by its Chairman in not sending the petitioner for Police Constable Recruitment Training in pursuance of P.C. Recruitment – 2008 results published by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner was qualified in the tests conducted which was subsequently conducted from 1.12.2008 to 10.12.2008 and in view of the concluding of criminal case in C.C.No.660 of 2006, dated 17.5.2008, passed by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, which ended in acquittal, and the same is illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to send the petitioner for Police Constable Recruitment Training forthwith in pursuance of the results of P.C. Recruitment 2008. The Tribunal by order dated 27.5.2009 dismissed the said O.A.No.5935 of 2009 on the ground that on verification of the application form and attestation form the applicant has mentioned in the relevant column that he has not involved in any criminal case though in fact he was involved in a criminal case which was ended in acquittal on 17.5.2008. The applicant gave a declaration in the application form saying that the information is correct and if the said information is found to be incorrect the application is liable to be rejected. Accordingly the said O.A. was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed contending that the petitioner is a S.C candidate and he has applied for the post of Police Constable for Police Constable Recruitment 2008 and he is qualified in all the tests conducted by the 2nd respondent, but the 2nd respondent is not sending him for Police Constable Recruitment Training on the ground that he has suppressed the information relating to his involvement in a criminal case. It is also stated that being a S.C candidate with great difficulty he studied S.S.C., Intermediate and Graduation with B.A. Degree with fond hope that he will get public employment and his dream is going to become unpractical if he is not sending for the said training programme for the simple mistake of not mentioning about the criminal case which was compoundable offence and ultimately acquitted by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, in C.C.No.660 of 2006, dated 17.5.2008, and therefore the action of the 2nd respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The petitioner also filed a copy of the application form for the post of Police Constables. Note 2 of the said application form states that suppression or concealment of facts will result in disqualification. Column No.24 relates to furnishing of information about the involvement in any criminal case at any time and if he has involved, he shall furnish the details of his involvement in the criminal case. It is stated by the petitioner in the said column as ‘no’ to the effect that he has not involved in any criminal case. As per the declaration of the candidate, it is stated that all statements made in the application are true, complete and correct to the best of the knowledge and belief. He further declared that the statements made in the application are true, complete and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief and in the event of any information being found to be false or incorrect or incomplete or that he has suppressed any information or he does not satisfy the eligibility criteria, his candidature for the selections is liable to be rejected or cancelled even after appointment, his services are liable to be terminated without any notice. It is not in dispute that as on the date of filing of the application the said criminal case was pending and therefore the information furnished in the application is not true and correct. If that being the case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for the selection and he cannot be sent for the Police Constable Training pursuant to his selection in Police Constable Recruitment 2008. I n R.Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police[1] the Apex Court held that suppression of material fact of this nature, the question of exercising an equitable jurisdiction in such a person would not arise. Indisputably, the petitioner 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 in other services. In the instant case, the appointing authority found that it is not desirable to send the petitioner for Police Constable Training on the sole ground that he has suppressed the fact that the criminal case was pending against him and he did not mention the same in the application form. I n A.P.Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarlu[2] the Apex Court held that a person who indulges in suppressi veri and suggestio falsi does not deserve any public employment. It is immaterial whether the offence in the said criminal case is compoundable or not. Furnishing of information as on the date of submission of the application is relevant; though he was acquitted subsequently it will not help the petitioner for obtaining employment. Therefore, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.5935 of 2009, dated 27.5.2009. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. __________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 10.6.2009 kpr [1] (2008) 1 SCC 660 [2] (2005) 7 SCC 177