ORDER

Petitioner's case is that he was working in a private school which was taken over by the respondents State in terms of the orders of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Petitioner's contention is that his services were absorbed vide order dated 21.04.2016 with effect from 2002. 2. Vide order Annx. P/1 his services were terminated on account of suppression of material information in regard to criminal antecedent as he had left the column blank in the verification form as enclosed by the respondents as Annx. R/1 along with their return.

3. Petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner had in fact furnished an affidavit as contained in Annx. P/9 giving his criminal antecedent therefore, it cannot be said to be suppression.

4. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Umesh Chandra Yadav v. The Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, Northern Railway, New Delhi and Others , 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 300, Pawan Kumar v. Union of India and Another, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 441 and Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India and Others, (2023) 7 SCC 536.

5. Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, submits that petitioner's employment was contractual in nature as is evident from Annx.P/6, an order passed by the District Education Officer, Tikamgarh, dated 21.04.2016, wherein, it is mentioned that as per the decision of the cabinet taken on 30.06.2014, a Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Collector, Tikamgarh, which had found 30 employees of Shastri Higher Secondary School, Kari, to be eligible for payment of contractual wages which will be subject to the outcome of the Civil Appeal pending before the Supreme Court.

6. Thereafter, it was found that petitioner had suppressed material information in Character Verification Form and his services were dispensed with vide order dated 31.01.2017 Annx.P/1.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Umesh Chandra Yadav (supra) is concerned, this decision has though laid down the law to the effect that the person who has suppressed the material information, cannot claim unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service but, at the same time, he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be exercised in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case on hand. The yardstick which has to be applied always depends upon the nature of post, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by the competent authority.

8. Similarly, in case of Pawan Kumar (supra), ratio of law is that mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. It is for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, a decision is to be taken regarding continuance of the suitability of the employee into service. In case of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra), it is held that discretionary decision of administrative authorities can be reviewed only on limited grounds such as bad faith of decision makers, exercise of discretion for improper purpose, application of irrelevant considerations and unreasonableness.

9. When these aspects are taken into consideration, then it is evident that Supreme Court in case of Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan and others Vs.

Ram Ratan Yadav [(2003) 3 SCC 437], recorded a fact that suppression of material information relating to character and antecedents is a major offence for which punishment may extend to dismissal from service as per the terms of offer of appointment. Attestation form is required to be duly filled and submitted by appointee inter