(Prayer: This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records in No. 50528/ EW/ 1/ 2017-7 dated 14.12.2018 (signed on 17.12.2018) of the 3rd respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Grade II Police Constable for the year 2017-2018)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner by the present writ petition has assailed the action of the third respondent in issuing impugned proceedings dated 14.12.2018 by which his application for the post of Grade II Police constable/Grade-II Jail Warders/Fireman for the year 2017-2018 has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed the fact of pending criminal case against him while submitting his application as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Petitioner contended that though an FIR was registered against him on the date he submitted the application, the said criminal case has resulted in acquittal subsequently and as such the respondent could not have rejected his candidature to the post of Police Constable/GradeII Jail Warders/Fireman having permitted him to take the examination held on 08.09.2018 subsequent to the submission of the application on 24.01.2018.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent not only permitted the petitioner to take part in the selection process by attending the written examination, the respondent had also also called upon the petitioner for physical test on 23.10.2018 and it is only thereafter had issued impugned proceedings on 14.12.2018 rejecting his application on the ground that he has suppressed the fact of the Registration of the FIR in Crime No.426 of 2017.

5. It is also contend that even before submitting the application the criminal case had ended in acquittal and the same was settled before the Lok Adalat on 09.12.2017 and thus, the impugned order rejecting the petitioner candidature to the post of Jail Warder is illegal and liable to to be set aside. Contending as above, the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and others reported in 2024 (INSC) 31.

6. The respondents by the counter affidavit filed mainly contended that in the application submitted by a candidate to the post of Constable Grade-II Jail warder, the candidate is only required to disclose as to whether any criminal case bas been registered against him at any point of time and that the column-15 of the said application only requires a candidate to mention the details of the criminal case and not as to whether the said case is pending or resulted in acquittal; and that the petitioner had not only suppressed the fact of registration of criminal case against him vide Crime No.426 of 2017 at the time of submitting the application, but also failed to disclose the said criminal case having settled before the Lok Adalat on 09.12.2017 and thus, the petitioner had resorted to suppression and the said fact having come to the notice of the respondent only through the antecedent verification. It is only thereafter the respondent have passed the impugned order and as such the said order does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court.

7. I have taken note of the respective contentious urged.

8. At the out set it is to be noted that the petitioner is seeking appointment to a post of uniformed service wherein on being selected would bestowed with the duties invoking the society at large, unlike recruitment to a civil post. It is for the said reason that the petitioner while submitting his application is required to make true and complete disclosure and cannot resort to suppression or entertain any dilemma as to what information to disclosed and what information not be disclosed. If only the petitioner had entertained any dilemma, he ought to have sought for clarification from the authorities concerned as to whether he is required to disclose the particular fact or not. The petitioner however did not undertake any such exercise and by himself took a decision not to disclose the Registration of a FIR against him on 29.07.2017 under the provisions of I.P.C and also did not disclose the said crime having been settled before Lok Adalat on 09.12.2017.

9. The aforesaid fact of a crime being registered against the petitioner and the same ending in settlement before Lok Adalat would not have come to the notice of the respondent, but for the antecedent verification undertaken by them. The mere fact of petitioner being successful in the written examination and being called for medical test on 11.03.2018 and 21.03.2018, the requirement of disclosure to be made by the applicant in the application is only to ensure that the respondent authorities are taking a conscious decision as to whether the candidate is fit for appointment into uniformed service or not and cannot be considered as not having any bearing on the selection process as contended by the petitioner. Even absorbing the same not having any bearing on the selection of a candidate nothing prevented the petitioner from disclosing the fact of FIR having been registered against him and the said FIR having been settled before the Lok Adalat on 09.12.2017 while submitting the application on 24.01.2018

10. On the other hand the petitioner having taken a decision by himself not to disclose the said fact and the said fact having come to the notice of the respondent only after the authorities undertaking the antecedent verification, the said non-disclosure would only be considered as suppression.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Mylapore Vs. J.Raghunees reported in [(2023) 16 SCC 647], while dealing with the eligibility criteria and suppression of relevant information with regard to conviction, acquittal, arrest or pendency of criminal case, in relation to appointment in the Police Department has observed as under:-

                   “14. In other words, the candidate in the first instance is obliged to give correct information as to his conviction, acquittal or arrest or pendency of the criminal case and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. Secondly, even if truthful declaration is made by him, he would not be entitled to appointment as a matter of right and that the employer still has the right to consider his antecedents.

                   15. In the case at hand, though the respondent may be eligible for appointment but since he has not disclosed the complete information with regard to his involvement in a criminal case, wherein he might have been acquitted earlier even before verification, he cannot escape the guilt of suppressing the material information as required by Column 15 of the verification roll. Keeping in mind that the respondent was a candidate for recruitment to a disciplined force, the non-disclosure of the information of his involvement in the criminal case and subsequent acquittal therefrom cast a serious doubt upon his character and the antecedents which is sufficient enough to disentitle him from employment.”

12. This Court in a similar challenge made in W.P.No.23088 of 2019 had considered the requirement of a candidate making a true and complete disclosure and held that even if the criminal case had resulted in acquittal, while submitting the application, the petitioner therein is not entitled for being appointed and rejection of the application by the respondent is valid.

13. Insofar as the reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Ravindran Kumar (supra), the fact under consideration in the said case are at variance with the facts in the present case. In the said case a criminal case came to be registered against the petitioner therein, five days after the submission of application and the Hon’ble Apex Court thus, noted that there is no suppression. Thus, the aforesaid decision would not advance the case of the petitioner.

14. In view of the above, since, the petitioner had failed to disclose the registration of crime in the application submitted by him and merely on the basis of the affidavit filed by him subsequently cannot substantiate his claim of he entertaining dilemma with regard to disclosing of the fact. The said plea urged does not appeal to this Court for being countenanced for more than one reason, suffice to state that the post to which petitioner is seeking appointment requiring him to start with a clean state by coming clean and be above board by having impeccable character.

15. Thus, the challenge to the impugned proceedings fails and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.