Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
DINESH MEHTA, J.
Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Ram Singh – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5470 of 2018
Decided On : 24-04-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 447, 504 and 34 - Constable Recruitment Examination, 2013 – Post of Constable- Recruitment Examination – Appointment – Criminal Case - Petitioner applied for post of Constable in Constable Recruitment Examination, 2013 - On being found meritorious, his name appeared in select list - In furtherance of interim order dated petitioner submitted his representation dated which came to be rejected by respondents by order dated, inter-alia, observing that as petitioner had concealed pendency of criminal case, he is not found suitable for appointment - Thereafter order dated came to be passed by respondent No. 3, whereby candidatures of 13 persons including petitioner was cancelled - Petitioner’s candidature was rejected on account of pendency of criminal case - Whether candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to post - Learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner had no intention of concealing the information about the criminal case while filing verification form and such disclosure was not deliberate or ill-intentioned - It was argued that such suppression cannot be a basis for denying appointment to petitioner. Para 9
Finding of Court :
Learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner had no intention of concealing information about criminal case while filing verification form and such disclosure was not deliberate or ill-intentioned - It was argued that such suppression cannot be a basis for denying appointment to petitioner - It was argued by Mr. Bissa that since the petitioner has concealed factum of pendency of criminal case against him, his candidature cannot be considered and there is no error in action of the respondents in holding the petitioner ineligible or not suitable - Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there are plethora of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in which it has been held that suppression of information about pending criminal case in verification form is a sufficient ground for canceling candidature or withholding appointment - It is not in dispute that both in application form and verification roll, petitioner did not disclose factum of pending criminal case against him.
Result : Writ petition therefore fails.
ORDER :
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 16.05.2017, whereby petitioner’s candidature for the post of Constable has been rejected, be quashed.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner applied for the post of Constable in the Constable Recruitment Examination, 2013. On being found meritorious, his name appeared in the select list.
3. When the petitioner was not issued appointment order, he preferred a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3321/2016, in which by way of interim order dated 29.03.2016, a coordinate Bench of this Court directed the respondents to consider petitioner’s representation.
4. In furtherance of the interim order dated 29.03.2016, the petitioner submitted his representation dated 11.04.2016, which came to be rejected by the respondents by order dated 20.05.2016, inter-alia, observing that as the petitioner had concealed the pendency of criminal case (FIR No. 205/2007, for the offences under sections 323, 447, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code), he is not found suitable for the appointment.
5. Thereafter the order dated 06.09.2016, came to be passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby candidatures of 13 persons including the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner’s candidature was rejected on account of pendency of criminal case.
6. The petitioner’s above referred writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3321/2016 came to be disposed of by the High Court on 20.01.2017, with the direction to the respondents to consider petitioner’s representation in light of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and the Division Bench Judgment in the case of Ashok Kuamr vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1603/2011.
7. In furtherance of the order dated 20.01.2017, the petitioner moved another representation, upon which the respondent No. 3 passed an order dated 16.05.2017 holding the petitioner to be ineligible for appointment, as he had not disclosed the factum of a criminal case pending against him in the character verification/declaration form. Said order dated 16.05.2017 is impugned in the present petition.
8. Mr. Bissa, learned counsel for the respondent-State at the outset submitted that when the petitioner’s name was shown in the select list, he was required to furnish verification roll in which he was required to give details of cases pending against him, if any. He highlighted that neither in the application form nor in the said verification note, the petitioner had disclosed the particulars of criminal case pending against him and it was only during the process of character verification it was found that a criminal case for offences under sections 323, 447, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending against him in furtherance of the FIR No. 205/2007.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had no intention of concealing the information about the criminal case while filing verification form and such disclosure was not deliberate or ill-intentioned. It was argued that such suppression cannot be a basis for denying appointment to the petitioner.
10. It was argued by Mr. Bissa that since the petitioner has concealed the factum of pendency of criminal case against him, his candidature cannot be considered and, therefore, there is no error in the action of the respondents in holding the petitioner ineligible or not suitable.
11. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there are plethora of judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in which it has been held that suppression of information about pending criminal case in verification form is a sufficient ground for canceling the candidature or withholding appointment.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
13. In the case of Avatar Singh vs. Union of India, 2016 (8) SCC 471, Hon’ble the Supreme Court while considering a host of decisions on the question of suppression/furnishing false information has held that it is the e
Point of Law : Suppression of information about pending criminal case in verification form is a sufficient ground for canceling the candidature or withholding appointment.
The competent authority must evaluate the suitability of a candidate with pending criminal charges for police service, considering the nature of the charges as per guidelines established in Avtar Sin....
The cancellation of a candidate's selection based solely on the registration of a criminal case, without evidence of complicity, is unjustified and reflects a lack of proper consideration of the fact....
The court established that pending criminal cases should not automatically disqualify candidates; a contextual evaluation of the offenses is essential.
Order impugned cancelling the candidature of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Candidates seeking employment in a disciplined police force are expected to carry high moral standards, and any deliberate misstatement or omission in furnishing vital information is viewed seriously....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
