O R D E R

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking the following relief:-

(i) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated

16.03.2023.

(ii) To hold the applicant eligible for appointment to the post of M.T.S.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant applied for the post of Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) under unreserved category pursuant to a notification dated 24.02.2021 issued by respondent no. 3. Vide notice dated 13.04.2022 (Annexure A-4), the applicant was declared successful in the written examination conducted on 26.12.2021 for the selection to the post of MTS in Arid Forest Research Institute, Jodhpur. He submitted duly filled attestation form and identity certificate. Vide letter dated 22.08.2022, the respondent no. 3 informed the applicant that as per the police investigation report there are other case also pending against the applicant apart for the motor accident case mentioned in the attestation form and he was asked to give details of all other pending cases and reason for not disclosing the same. The applicant submitted explanation vide letter dated 05.09.2022 (Annexure A-9) accepting the unintentional mistake and tendered apology for the same. The applicant was asked to submit another explanation dated 19.09.2022 (Annexure A-10). The applicant submitted the required information. The applicant pleaded that in the said explanation due to typographical error one wrong number of FIR was written which was not against the applicant. The respondents vide letter dated16.03.2023 (Annexure A-11) rejected the applicant‟s candidature and debarred him from applying in future vacancies issued by respondents. The applicant filed CWP No. 8049/2023 before the Hon‟ble Jodhpur High Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.07.2023 (Annexure A-13) with liberty to approach this Tribunal.

3. The contention of the applicant is that since the applicant has accepted the bonafide mistake and tendered unconditional apology for the same and disclosed all the cases pending against him, the respondents‟ decision to reject his candidature and debarring him from further recruitment is harsh and arbitrary. The applicant averred that he was under the impression that only the case filed under IPC was to be disclosed, therefore, he did not disclose the details of other case pending against him.

4. The respondent no. 3 filed short reply. It has been stated therein that the applicant had passed the qualifying exam and selected for the post of MTS. He was informed that an appointment offer will be sent only after the verification of all his records. The applicant submitted its verification form and identity certificate vide Annexure A-6 whereby he disclosed that an FIR no. 214 dated 18.05.2018 pertaining to accident was lodged against him. The respondent, on verification, discovered that there were three excise cases vide FIR No. 543 dated 24.07.2021, FIR No. 742 dated 16.11.2021 and FIR No. 803 dated 18.12.2021 were pending against the applicant, as per verification report dated 10.02.2023 (Annexure R-1), which he failed to disclose in his verification form. It was succinctly warned on the verification form that furnishing of false or suppression of any factual information in the verification form would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employer under the ICFRE. On this ground, the respondent has prayed that the applicant is not entitled to relief sought in the O.A.

5. Reliance has been placed upon judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. G. Ganayutham (Dead) by LRs, AIR 1997 3387, Daya Shankar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Others (Civil Appeal No. 9913 of 20109 arising out of SLP(C) No. 16989 of 2006), Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs.

Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437 and Union of India Vs. Kali Dass Batish, (2006) 1 SCC 779 and Hon‟ble High Cour