RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. GULAB CHAND MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present Appeal the Rajasthan Public Service Commission has impugned a judgment and order dated 12.1.1987 passed by a learned Single Judge of our Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1602/1986. The respondent writ petitioner belongs to Schedule Tribe, and is a post- graduate from the University of Rajasthan. With effect from 7.2.1980 he was serving in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation as an L.D.C. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission'), he appeared for the State Services as well as the Subordinate Services Examination, and passed the written test held by the Commission and was called for an interview. His case, inter alia, was that in his interview he disclosed the fact of his employment with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') but did not mention the said fact in this application form before the Commission. After his interview was over, he was served with a notice dated 8.7.1986 whereby the Commission proposed cancellation of his candidature as well as his result in the examination and proposed to debar him for one year from appearing in all the examinations to be held by the Commission. The writ petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause on 21.7.1986. Thereafter he received an order dated 16.8.1986 from the Commission giving out the decision that he was debarred for one year from appearing at any examination to be conducted by the Commission and that his result for the examination, in which he appeared, also stood cancelled. The stand taken by the writ petitioner was that inadvertantly he failed to mention in his application form that he was already employed with the Corporation. However, in the course of his interview he clearly disclosed the said fact. The learned Single Judge held that omission to mention about his employment at the time of his appearing in the examination, was inconsequential. Even though he was in employment, he was otherwise eligible to appear in the examination. He did not seek any advantage nor any benefit by making a concealment about the factum of his employment with the Corporation. He gave out an explanation that it was an inadvertant mistake while he was in a hurry to attend his ailing father. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the Commission not having given any reason as to why the explanation of the writ petitioner was not accepted by it and also not given out as to how the omission about his employment, in any manner affected his eligibility in appearing for the examination and that apart, the Commission not having filed any reply in the writ petition, all of them taken cumulatively resulted in the writ petition to be allowed and the notice dated 8.7.1986 as well as the order dated 16.8.1986 to be quashed. The Commission was, however, directed to declare the result of the writ petitioner without taking note of the said notice and order.

(2.) The learned advocate for the appellant Commission contends before us that if a candidate does not answer all the questions or columns in the application form, he would be guilty of suppression of material facts. Any person guilty of making statement which is incorrect or false, or of suppressing material information, may be debarred either permanently or for a specified period, by the Commission from admission to any examination or appearance at any interview held by the Commission for selection of candidates. It may be true that had the fact of his employment been disclosed, it would not have caused a bar as regards his eligibility to apear in examination/interview, but then there was also a requirement that in respect of those persons who are in Government services, their applications have to be forwarded through their Heads of the Department, or at-least with their concurrence or consent. That was also not so done in the present case. Whether or not the writ petitioner derived any advantage out of the suppression of material facts in his application form, is inconsequential. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that it was not proper on the part of the learned Single Judge to have allowed the writ petition by way of quashing the order as passed by the Commission as also the notice served on the writ petitioner and directing the Commission to declare his result without taking into consideration the notice and the order as passed by the Commission.

(3.) The learned advocate for the appellants, however, brought to our notice a decision of the Supreme Court in Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission Vs. Farhat Rasool and others, 1994 Supp. (4) SCC 621 . That was a case where a candidate in his application to the Public Service Commission made a declaration as to his having passed the qualifying examination, but then as and when he gave a declaration the result of that examination had not been announced and subsequently the result was announced and he was found successful. Still then, notwithstanding his success in the qualifying examination and on account of his having furnished wrong information as to his eligibility, the said candidate was held not entitled to relief against withholding of the result of his selection by the Public Service Commission. The Supreme Court in this case took into consideration the earlier decision in Charles K. Skaria Vs. Dr. C. Mathew, (1980) 2 SCC 752 , where the writ petitioner informed about his success in the qualifying examination to the knowledge of the selection committee before completion of selection and he was ultimately found eligible for selection. In this case, however, the Supreme Court distinguished the earlier decision in Charles K. Skaria Vs. Dr. C. Mathew (Ibid), (1980) 2 SCC 752 and held that where almost a fraud was sought to be played by the candidate by giving wrong information as to his eligibility, benefit of that fraud cannot be allowed to him.