M.G. Giratkar, J.

1. By the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (herein after referred to as 'CAT') dated 7th August 2014, by which the petitioners are directed to issue appointment order to the respondents.

The fact in dispute in short are as under:

2. The respondent nos.1 and 2 appeared in the examination for the post of Danger Building Worker (semi skilled) in Ordnance Factory, Chanda. In the written examination both the respondents secured merit position at Sr. No. 230 and 347 respectively out of 672 candidates. After the examination, respondents were directed to fill up the form in respect of pendencey of criminal cases etc. Both the respondents scratched the word 'Yes' in all the columns of the prescribed form and kept 'No' as it is. Respondents came to know about their mistake by not showing Criminal Case against them for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 447, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was the case between in respect of family dispute, on the report lodged by their maternal uncle. Both the respondents with their father were prosecuted. In the Lok Adalat, the said matter was compromised. Accepting terms of compromise both the respondents came to be acquitted as per the provisions of Section 320 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The respondents submitted their representation on 26.8.2012 to the petitioners, after realising their mistake that inadvertently they could not point out in the prescribed form that they were prosecuted and acquitted by the Competent Court. It was pointed out by both the respondents that they are from rural area and educated only up to 10th standard plus I.T.I. It was also pointed out that the prescribed form given to them was in English with only column Yes/No. They inadvertently scratched all the option of 'Yes' and kept open 'No' in all the columns.

4. On 26.8.2012 both the respondents pointed out their mistake and submitted that they were prosecuted and acquitted by the competent Court. Thereafter, on 5.1.2013 petitioners cancelled their selection for the post of Danger Building Worker (semi skilled), without considering their representations.

5. Both the respondents approached to the CAT challenging the order of petitioners by which the selection was cancelled. After hearing both the sides and after evaluation of the judgment of Apex Court the CAT recorded its findings that there is no dispute that both the respondents were prosecuted on the report of their maternal uncle. The matter was compromised and they were acquitted. They were acquitted long before the advertisement of the said posts. It was not their intention to suppress this fact from the employer (petitioners). It is observed in the judgment that the information supplied by the respondents might be incorrect, but never it was false leading to cancellation of selection by the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners/employer were directed to issue appointment order to both the respondents for the post of Danger Building Worker (semi skilled) at Ordnance Factory, Chanda within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. It was also directed to report the compliance. The said order is under challenge in the present petition.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mrs. Chandurkar and learned counsel Shri. Burde for the respondents.

7. There is no dispute that issue involved in this petition is very short. Whether the suppression of fact in respect of the prosecution and acquittal of respondents is the material fact for the cancellation of selection of the respondents for the post of Danger Building Worker. There is no dispute that there was no any other case or offence pending against the respondents, when they appeared for the examination. There is no dispute that both the respondents were acquitted by the competent Court before they appeared for the examination. Both the respondents passed their respective exami