The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific disclosure of information in attestation/verification forms and the employer's discretion in considering special circumstances while making decisions based on the disclosed information.

1. Aurangjeb Khan is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 26.2.2015 passed by the Chief Regional Manager respondent no. 3 wherein petitioner has been informed that his candidature in question has been rejected on account of wrong declaration of fact.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present controversy are that an advertisement was published on 8th September, 2013 in newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' for allotment of L.P.G. Distributorship under Rajiv Ghandhi Rural L.P.G. Distribution Scheme. Petitioner applied in response to the aforesaid advertisement for grant of L.P.G. Distributorship. As per clause-12 of the advertisement petitioner had to furnish a detail in respect of the fact that as to whether he has been convicted by a criminal court in the cases involving moral turpitude or any charge has been framed by the Court against him. If answer is yes, then he should be treated to be disqualified for the purpose of grant of L.P.G. Distributorship. Petitioner was also required to file an affidavit mentioning therein as to whether he has been convicted in a criminal case involving moral turpitude or economic offence and the charge has been framed against him involving moral turpitude or economic offence. In the application form, petitioner has mentioned "No" against the requirement to be furnished by him. The requirement was that if at all, the candidate has been convicted in a criminal case by the court in respect of moral turpitude, or the charge of economic offence has been framed by the Court. After verifying the application form, the Chief Regional Manager has rejected the claim of the petitioner by order dated 26.2.2015 by saying that the charge-sheet under Section 3, 4, 6, 7 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 has been taken cognizance of by the court and therefore, petitioner has furnished false information and hence his claim is treated to be rejected and the security deposit made by the petitioner is also forfeited accordingly.

3. Petitioner at this stage came to this Court wherein response in question has been filed on behalf of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of Akhilesh Kumar Singh in whose favour subsequent allotment in question has been made. Rejoinder has been filed and thereafter the present matter is being taken up for final hearing and disposal.

4. Sri V.K. Singh, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 26.2.2015 passed by the Chief Regional Manager is based on wrong premises and the fact of the matter is that, at no point of time, any incorrect declaration has been made by the petitioner and, accordingly, the said order deserves to be quashed with the direction to consider the candidature of the petitioner on merits.

5. Sri Vikas Budhwar, Advocate, contended that rightful decision has been taken in the matter and no interference should be made by this Court.

6. Sri O.P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Upendra Upadhyaya, Advocate, on the other hand contended that newly impleaded respondents has already opened his agency and in view of this, no interference be made by this Court in this behalf.

7. Factual situation on which there is no dispute, that the petitioner had applied for consideration of his candidature for grant of L.P.G. Distributorship and as per clause 12 of the advertisement, the petitioner was obligated to furnish details to the fact as to whether he has been convicted by a criminal court in the case of involving moral turpitude or any charge has been framed by the court against him. The petitioner filed an affidavit mentioning "No" against the requirement to be furnished by him. This much is also reflected that the petitioner was selected but thereafter in verification proceeding, that has been so undertaken, it was reflected that against petitioner, a charge sheet bearing no. 453/13 dated 3.8.2013 under Section 3, 4, 6 &7 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 has been pending and in