Non-disclosure of an acquitted criminal case does not automatically disqualify candidates; each case must be evaluated on individual circumstances, particularly if the offence is trivial.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has applied for the post of Forest Guard with driving licence. He has been participated in the written examination and endurance test. He has also been appointed in service on 05.06.2025. However, by proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 07.01.2026, his candidature was rejected on the ground of suppression of his involvement in a criminal case. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a first graduate from his family. He is also having a driving licence. He has completed all the selection process and he has also been appointed in service on 05.06.2026. However, the petitioner, inadvertently, failed to mention the criminal case, in which he was involved, since the criminal case ended in acquittal. However, on the ground that he has suppressed his involvement in the criminal case, his candidature has been rejected.

3. The learned counsel, by relying upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India , (2016) 8 SCC 471, submits that in case of acquittal, if there is any suppression of a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, his candidature can be cancelled and in all other cases, it can be considered. By following the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avthar Singh's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a subsequent judgment in Ravindra Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , (2024) 5 SCC 264 has set aside the similar rejection order. The learned counsel has also relied on a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.1786 of 2023 dated 19.06.2025 and submits that the Division Bench of this Court, by following the abovesaid Judgments, has also granted relief to a similarly placed person. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks interference of the impugned order.

4. Mr.V.Panneer Selvam, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner's candidature has been rejected on the ground that he has suppressed his involvement in a criminal case, which is in violation of the conditions as prescribed in the Notification. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. In support of his contention, he has also relied on para 38.7 of the Judgment in Avthar Singh's case.

5. This Court has considered the rival submissions made and perused the materials placed on record.

6. The petitioner claims that he is a first graduate from his family. He has successfully cleared the written examination and endurance test. However, he failed to mention his involvement in a criminal case. Admittedly, even before the selection process, he has been acquitted from the criminal case. However, he ought to have mentioned his involvement in the criminal case as per the Notification of the TNPSC.

7. In a similar issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 , has issued certain conditions as under:

“38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of speci