ORDER :

1. Heard Sri. Srinivas Gangishetti learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 41476 of 2022, Sri B. Arjun learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 43715 of 2022, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sai Prasen Gundavaram, representing Smt. K. Uday Sri in W.P. No. 30029 of 2017, Smt. V. Uma Devi learned standing counsel for the High Court for the State of Telangana, appearing for respondents in W.P. Nos. 41476 and 43715 of 2022 and Sri Y. Rama Rao, learned standing counsel for the High Court for the State of Telangana in W.P. No. 30029 of 2017.

2. Since the issue involved in the three writ petitions is same, all the three writ petitions are considered and decided by this common order.

W.P. No. 41476 of 2022:

3. Pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 21.01.2021 concerning Nizamabad District Judicial Ministerial Service, petitioner applied for the post of Officer Subordinate, participated in the selection process and was provisionally selected. His provisional selection was intimated vide letter dated 14.02.2022. Against column No. 11 of attestation form, which deals with arrest, detention, conviction etc, petitioner wrote ‘NO’. On verification of antecedents, by order dated 09.09.2022 the provisional selection of petitioner was cancelled on the ground that he did not disclose information regarding crime registered against him.

4. The wife of the petitioner filed criminal complaint against petitioner alleging that petitioner and his family members were harassing her physically and mentally, and were also demanding additional dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- and driven her out from their house and that she was living with her parents. Crime No. 448 of 2011 was registered under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prevention Act, 1961 against him on 24.12.2011 in C.C. No. 506 of 2013 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Bodhan and same was compounded in Lok-Adalath on 5.3.2016 held at Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Bodhan. The registration of the said crime and the result of the crime was not disclosed by the petitioner.

5. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the inter se dispute was compromised before the Lok Adalat and accordingly, the Lok Adalat passed Award acquitting the petitioner from the offences alleged against him. In view of the acquittal granted by the Lok Adalat, merely because petitioner has not disclosed the registration of crime, cannot be viewed as grave, leading to cancellation of his provisional selection to the post of Office Subordinate.

6. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on following decisions:

(i) Avatar Singh vs. Union of India, 2016 (8) SCC 471

(ii) Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India and Another, 2022 Law Suit (SC) 555

(iii) S. Churchil vs. State and Others, W.P. No. 2397 of 2013

7. According to learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, petitioner was involved in a crime under Section 498-A, was detained by police and was discharged by way of compromise before Lok Adalath. His involvement; arrest and discharge were not disclosed by the petitioner. These facts came to light only in police verification. It thus amounts to suppression of his past criminal record. Such person is not entitled to seek public employment. She produced the copy of bail bond dated 28.12.2011 releasing the petitioner on furnishing two sureties for Rs. 5,000/- each and it is contended that petitioner was arrested and released on furnishing sureties, whereas, he has not disclosed the said arrest in column No. 11 of the attestation form filled by him and the same thing amounts to suppression of relevant facts. She would submit that no illegality was committed by respondents while canceling the provisional selection of petitioner.

8. In support of the above contentions, learned standing counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Chetan Jeff, 2022 Live Law (SC)