JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shrawan Kumar Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no.1, and Sri Rahul Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri F.A. Ansari, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

2. The petitioner through the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 01.10.2022 passed by respondent no.2 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Review Officer on the ground that criminal cases pending against him fall within the purview of 'moral turpitude'.

3. The brief facts of the case are that under Advertisement No.01/R.O. & A.R.O./2021 dated 17th August 2021, online applications were invited from the eligible candidates for filling up 350 posts of Assistant Review Officers. The petitioner applied for being considered for appointment on the said post under O.B.C/Physically Handicapped category.

4. The petitioner appeared in each stage of selection and was declared successful for the said post.

5. A notice was issued by the selection committee calling upon the petitioner to appear on 06.04.2022 for document verification. The petitioner was also required to furnish an affidavit to the effect that whether any criminal case is pending against him or not. The petitioner submitted an affidavit dated 02.04.2022 during the document verification disclosing the details of two F.I.Rs lodged against him; (i) Case Crime No.0172 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. at P.S. Tajganj, District Agra; (ii) Case Crime No.0389 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 & 120B I.P.C., Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2008 and Section 7 of the Examination Rules, 1982.

6. Respondent no.2 vide order dated 01.10.2022 cancelled the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that two criminal cases pending against the petitioner come within the purview of 'moral turpitude'. The said order is impugned in the writ petition.

7. It is further stated that in Case Crime No.0172 of 2019, the charge sheet has been filed on 14.03.2020 under Sections 420, 467, and 468 I.P.C. The petitioner in the said criminal case has been enlarged on bail by the Sessions Judge, Agra vide order dated 18.03.2019 passed in Bail Application no.1375 of 2019. In respect to Case Crime No.0384 of 2021, it is stated that a charge sheet has been filed on 17.10.2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, and 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2008 and Section 7 of Examination Rules, 1982. In the said criminal case, the petitioner has also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 11.08.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.26707 of 2021.

8. It is further stated that while cancelling the candidature of the petitioner, the procedure contemplated in the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 has not been followed. It is also alleged that the impugned order did not advert to the section under which F.I.R. has been lodged and the conduct of the petitioner, and thus, the impugned order has been passed mechanically.

9. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.2, it is stated that the petitioner did not disclose the details about the pendency of criminal cases against him in the online application form. This fact is evident from the online application form appended as annexure 2 to the writ petition in which in the column of 'criminal proceeding' the petitioner has filled as follows:-

10. It is further stated that in the advertisement, General Instructions were given under Chapter-9 for filling up the online application form. Under the general instructions, it is specifically stated that if a candidate is found providing inco