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