1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for appointment on the post of Constable (General Duty) in pursuance of advertisement dated 14.10.2010 and provide appointment with all consequential benefits.

3. As per facts of the case, in pursuance of advertisement issued by respondents for filing up the post of Constable (General Duty), petitioner being eligible applied for recruitment. In the selection process, petitioner was declared successful but respondents denied appointment to the petitioner for the reason that he has made concealment of fact with regard to registration of criminal case for the offence of Section 458, 323/34 IPC at Police station Bichhiwada.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that denial of appointment to the petitioner on the ground of concealment of fact with regard to criminal case for offences under Section 458, 323/34 IPC and subsequently on acquittal from the said case, respondents cannot deny appointment in view of recent judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar', reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644 which is followed by this Court in the case of Suryabhan Solanki v. State of Rajasthan decided on 19.10.2011 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9304/208 in which adjudication made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) was considered.

5. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that Hon'ble Supreme Court while taking into consideration the facts of Sandeep Kumar case observed that involvement in criminal case is probably not mentioned due to fear that if he did so, he would automatically be disqualified therefore, denial of appointment is not proper, if offences are not related with moral turpitude. Following adjudication was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sandeep Kumar (Supra):-

"In response to the advertisement issued in January 1999 for filling up of certain posts of Head Constables (Ministerial), the respondent applied on 24.02.1999 but did not mention in his application form that he was involved in the aforesaid criminal case. The respondent qualified in all the tests for selection to the post of temporary Head Constable (Ministerial). On 03.04.2001 he filled the attestation form wherein for the first time he disclosed that he had been involved in a criminal case with his tenant which, later on, had been compromised in 1998 and he had been acquitted.

On 02.08.2001 a show cause notice was issued to him asking the respondent to show cause why his candidature for the post should not be cancelled because he had concealed the fact of his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case and had made a wrong statement in his application form. The respondent submitted his reply on 17.08.2001 and an additional reply but the authorities were not satisfied with the same and on 29.05.2003 cancelled his candidature.

The respondent filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed on 13.02.2004. Against that order the respondent filed a writ petition which has been allowed by the Delhi High Court and hence this appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the respondent should have disclosed the fact of his involvement in the criminal case even if he had later been acquitted. Hence, it was submitted that his candidature was rightly cancelled.

We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscr