EX SWEEPER RAMVIR SINGH 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 he was offered employment as a 'Sweeper' in CRPF, while filling up the enrollment form, as per column 12-A whereof he was required to disclose: Whether he 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 the menial job of sweeping floors and cleaning toilets, we wonder what relevance said aspect of the matter would have to the employment.

(3.) THE petitioner claims, and for which we have no reasons to doubt, he misread the question as if he was to inform whether he was currently an accused. The petitioner claims that since he had been acquitted he thought that he ought to have written 'No' against the column concerned.