NIRBHAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions involved an indentical question of law and as such they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The services of the petitioners stood terminated or their appointment letters had been cancelled or they had not been offered appointments inspite of their selection, only on the ground that on verification made by the respondent-Authority through the Local Administration, it had been revealed that petitioners had been subjected to criminal trial before applying for the employment in response to the advertisement for the posts and this factum was not disclosed by the petitioners while applying for employment. The submissions made by the teamed counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had been acquitted in the criminal trial or Final Report had been filed by the police after investigating the case, are of no consequence and not worth considering, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioners had not been found non-suited for employment on the ground of their involvement in criminal cases, rather they had been found guilty of suppressing the material-fact while filling up the application forms for the said posts.

(3.) In the application forms, which the petitioners had filled-up, there were specific columns, i.e., Column Nos. 17 and 18, wherein the petitioners were asked to furnish certain information : Whether the applicant had ever been subjected to criminal case and if 'Yes' with what result, or whether any criminal case was pending against him? The petitioners had suppressed this fact and answered in negative while filling-up the said columns. On verification from the Local Administration when the respondent-Authority came to know that the petitioners had suppressed the material fact of having been involved in criminal cases, the impugned orders were passed. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners' involvement in criminal cases, particularly after acquittal or submitting the Final Report by the police, cannot be taken into account, is not worth consideration. Petitioners have not disputed the factum of their involvement in criminal cases nor they have denied the factum of suppression of material information or making misrepresentation on this issue, while filling up the application forms. Thus, it is admitted fact that petitioners obtained the employment by making false-statement/misrepresentation, which tentamounts to fraud.