Important point
Where employer seek information to be furnished by candidate while applying for the post, candidate cannot set in judgment about relevance of the information called for and decide to supply it or not.

Judgment

Srikrishna, J.—Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is brought by the A.P. Public Service Commission to impugn a judgment of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad directing the appellant commission to give employment to the First Respondent by accommodation him in the next available vacancy. The facts leading to the present appeal fall within a limited matrix and they are as follows.

3. On 2.7.1999 the appellant commission published an advertisement inviting applications for filling up various categories of posts including four posts of Women Child and Welfare Officers by direct recruitment from candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The application form given out to the candidates, required by Column 11 and Annexure III, that the candidates should furnish full information with regard to their appointments in Government/private sectors, if any. The notification issued by the commission specifically informed the candidates that giving of any false/wrong information or suppression of material information would lead to cancellation of the candidature. The First Respondent was a candidate for the recruitment as he belongs to Scheduled Tribe. He filled up the application form, but left Column 11 pertaining to previous employment totally blank. He gave a declaration at the end of the application which stated:

“I hereby declare that all statements made in this application are true and correct and I undertake to produce original documents at any moment of time, failing which my candidature could be cancelled.”

He also filled up Annexure III in which the declaration was as follows:

“I hereby declare that I am not working in any Government Department/Quasi Government/Public Sector/Private Sector and that my maximum age does not exceed 35 years as on 1.7.1999.

I further declare that the information furnished by me is true and correct and my candidature shall be cancelled at any stage if it is found in-correct.”

4. The application of the First Respondent was accepted and he was allowed to take the written examination. The First Respondent passed the written examination and was called for interview. He was also selected in the interview. Before the First Respondent could be notified about the result, the appellant learnt that the First Respondent was employed and was working as a teacher, and that he had suppressed this information by deliberately not filling up Column 11. A show cause notice was issued to the First Respondent calling upon him to show cause why his candidature should not be cancelled. The First Respondent submitted an explanation to the show cause notice stating therein inter alia that he inadvertently filled up and signed Annexure III of the application form, which was not required to be filled up by him and, therefore, there was no suppression of material information. Annexure III was intended only for candidates seeking fee exemption for un-employed youth in the age group of 18-35. This was not applicable to the First Respondent as he belonged to Scheduled Tribe. The appellant commission cancelled the candidature of the First Respondent by taking the view that he had deliberately indulged in suppression of relevant information and that his explanation to the show cause notice was not satisfactory.

5. The First Respondent moved the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (“the Tribunal”) by his application O.A.No. 7962/2001 challenging the cancellation of his candidature. The Tribunal heard the parties and by its order dated 18.11.2003 dismissed the O.As. and upheld the action of the appellant commission in cancellation of the candidature of the First Respondent. The First Respondent moved the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh by a Writ Petition No. 26743/2003 in which he impugned the judgment and order of the Tribunal. By the impugned judgment the High Court allowed his writ petition and accepted the explanation of the First Respondent that he had not misrepresented or suppressed