VIRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) ALL these appeals except Special Appeal No. 579/2000 were filed against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge (Mr. Justice J. C. Verma), dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants on the ground that the appellants-petitioners had not disclosed the correct facts in the application forms in the column provided for it of their being involved as an accused. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that a deliberate attempt had been made by the appellant-petitioners to conceal the facts and that they have no right to conceal the fact of their involvement in any criminal case if so required by the recruiting agency. Virendra Singh vs. State & Others (D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 597 of 2000):

(3.) THIS appeal was filed against the order passed by Hon'ble Dr. Justice B. S. Chauhan, in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 36/2000, which was rejected on the ground that the appellant had concealed material facts while filling of the application form that he had never been involved in any criminal case. The appellant in this case does not dispute his involvement in the criminal case, rather it was stated that he was involved in a Criminal Case u/s. 323 and 147 I. P. C. and during trial the offence u/s. 323 was compounded and the appellant stood convicted for the offence u/s. 147 IPC vide judgment and order dated 20. 10. 97, the appellant had been given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. His conviction u/s. 147 IPC is washed off, therefore, the appellant cannot be held guilt of concealing any material fact to make him disentitle for the post in question. The learned Judge, on consideration of the entire material passed the detailed order and dismissed the writ petition accordingly.