JUDGMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. — Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to legality of the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court setting aside the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short “the Tribunal”) and holding that the authori¬ties were not justified in denying appointment to the respondent.

3. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice:

The respondent appeared for the recruitment test conducted for the selection of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (Civil) in Visakhapatnam. He was successful in the test and thereafter he was subjected to medical test. After the two tests were over, he was required to undergo training. But he was not sent for training on the ground that the Superintendent of Po¬lice, Visakhapatnam by order dated 5.5.2003 had directed that he was not to be sent for training. Questioning legality of such order, the respondent filed an original application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the examination for selection was conducted on 16.3.2003. Subsequent, he underwent the physical test and was successful. By order dated 28.4.2003 the Superin¬tendent of Police, Visakhapatnam informed the respondent about his selection and directed him to report at the District Police Office at Viskhapatnam for further medical test. He was also directed to carry with him uniforms and other items necessary for training which was organised at Central Police Lines, Amberpet. Though the respondent was subjected to medical examination he was not allowed to join the training programme. He was informed that since he had been arrested in Crime No.28 of 2000 on the file of Police Station, Kukatpally, registered under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) and Unfair (Means) Act, 1997 he was not eligible to be appointed. Before the Tribu¬nal the respondent took the stand that since he had not been charged and had not been convicted and since he had no connection with the crime, the order of the Superintendent of Police was not tenable. His further stand was that the case was registered in respect of the earlier recruitment test in the year 2000 and there was no reason to debar him since there was no conviction, and, therefore, the action of the authority is not proper. The present appellants filed counter-affidavit stating that before final verification the respondent was permitted to appear in the examination and the tests. Subsequently, it was noticed that the respondent herein was arrested on 16.1.2000 and was sent to judicial custody in the case referred to above. That case was under investigation and the Forensic Science Laboratory report was awaited. The applicant while submitting attestation form after completion of written examination did not mention about his arrest and the pending case which he was required to do. Since he had suppressed the truth in terms of the instructions laid down in declaration at column 3, the respondent had incurred disquali¬fication and he was not a fit person for employment under the Government. The Tribunal noted that against column 12 of the attestation form, the respondent had not mentioned about the pending case and had not even indicated about his arrest. This amounted to suppression of truth in the attestation form and declaration at column 3. Therefore, in terms of the instructions he had incurred disqualification and was unfit for employment under the Government. The Tribunal held that the respondent was not a person of good conduct and character since he had sup¬pressed material information while filling up the attestation form. He did not deserve any relief. Accordingly the original applica¬tion was dismissed.

4. The matter was challenged before the Andhra Pradesh High Court and by the impugned judgment it was held that there was no requirement under column 12 to mention about any pending case or arrest and, therefore, the action of the authorities, in not permitting the r