NEETU MISHRA Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance copy being served says that the writ petition be dismissed in limine for the reason the petitioner has admitted in the writ petition that when she was offered employment as a 'Constable' in CRPF, while filling up the enrollment form, as per column 12-A whereof she was required to disclose: Whether she was ever an accused for having committed an offence, the petitioner wrote in the negative. Counsel highlights that in a matter relating to public employment, past antecedents are very important. As per learned counsel, if a person suppresses relevant information having a bearing on the antecedents and the character, the person concerned would lose the right to public employment.

(2.) AS a general statement, what is stated by learned counsel for the respondents may be correct. But it has to be understood with reference to public employment where the person concerned renders a service which brings the person into interface with the public or which requires the person to deal with pubic issues, be it by way of policy or by executive action. But, if the public employment is to perform a very basic duty, we wonder what relevance said aspect of the matter would have to the employment.

(3.) AS per the petitioner she committed an unintentional mistake. She was aged 20 years when she filled the form. So overwhelmed was she by the fact that she got a job that she did not even bother to properly read the contents of the form.