The concealment of minor criminal cases in employment applications should be evaluated contextually, considering the candidate's background and the nature of the offenses.

JUDGMENT :

Siddhartha Varma, J.

1. In response to an advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission dated 5.3.2021, the petitioner, who was a Scheduled Caste candidate, applied for being appointed on the post of Samiksha Adhikari/Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari in the Central Secretariat of the Public Service Commission/Board of Revenue/office of the Chief Election Officer. In response thereof, the petitioner was allotted a Roll Number being Roll No.217801. After having participated in the examination process, the final result of the selection was published by a press notification dated 20.1.2023 wherein the petitioner was shown as selected as Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari and his name was shown at Serial No.99 of the list of selected candidates. On 19.5.2023, the petitioner was required to fill up a declaration/verification form and was required to be medically examined by the Chief Medical Officer, Sant Ravidas Nagar. In response thereof, the petitioner submitted his verification form on the prescribed format on 31.5.2023. He was also medically examined on 2.6.2023. After having filled his verification form wherein the petitioner had indicated that no criminal proceeding had been undertaken against him, he shortly thereafter realized his mistake and therefore by an affidavit on 17.7.2023 informed the concerned officials that there was a criminal case which was registered against him by the police as Case Crime No.198/2019 and thereafter was being tried before the Court concerned as Criminal Case No.271/2020. He had also given the details of a Case Crime No.215/2018 in which the petitioner was never charge sheeted. Prior to the filing of the affidavit on 17.7.2023, the result of the petitioner had already been declared on 13.7.2023. When the final appointment order was not being issued, the petitioner had filed various representations and he had also found that on 4.7.2023 the District Magistrate as per the Government Order dated 24.4.1958 had submitted his report that the petitioner be issued a letter of appointment which shall be subject to the decision of the Criminal Case No.271/2020. However, despite the recommendation made by the District Magistrate, on 11.12.2023, the State Government passed an order declining to grant appointment to the petitioner. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being Writ-A No.817 of 2024. When the writ petition was filed on 26.2.2024, this Court had directed the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions specially with regard to the filing of the affidavit dated 17.7.2023 which had been as per the petitioner filed by him. The petitioner was also required to file an affidavit submitting the proof of filing of the affidavit dated 17.7.2023. The writ petition was finally heard and decided by this Court on 5.11.2024 whereby the order dated 11.12.2023 of the Joint Secretary, Secretariat Administration Section-5 (Establishment), Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow was quashed and the petitioner was required to be given an appointment letter. Aggrieved thereof, the State of Uttar Pradesh has filed the instant Special Appeal.

2. Essentially, the Senior Counsel Sri Ajit Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the very fact that the petitioner-respondent had concealed the information about the pendency of a criminal case was itself indicative of the fact that the petitioner had not come with clean hands and that, therefore, he could not be retained in service as a Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari. Learned counsel for the appell