Maya Baranda @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:

“1. The record of the case may kindly be called for

That impugned orders dated 16.03.2016 passedby respondent no.2 may kindly be quashed and set aside and that the respondents may kindly be

directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner.

Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, therespondents may be directed to grant the appointment on the post of Constable to the petitioner as

per his merit with all consequential benefits or vacant a post of Constable for the petitioner.

Any other appropriate order or direction, whichthis Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may

kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.â€​

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall be satisfied if his representation is considered by the respondents in

light of the direction given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.20525/2011 (Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

decided on 21.07.2016), in which following directions were given:

“30. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize

our conclusion thus:

(1) Information given to the employer by acandidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after

entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

(2) While passing order of termination of services orcancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special

circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

(3) The employer shall take into consideration theGovernment orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

(4) In case there is suppression or false informationof involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before

filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case

may be adopted:-

(a) In a case trivial in nature in which conviction hadbeen recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed

would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false

information by condoning the lapse.

(b) Where conviction has been recorded in casewhich is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

(c) If acquittal had already been recorded in a caseinvolving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a

case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and

may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

(5) In a case where the employee has madedeclaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents,

and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

(6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared incharacter verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in

facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.

(7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact withrespect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an

employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have

adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.

(8) If criminal case was pending but not known tothe candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing

authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.

(9) In case the employee is confirmed in service,holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or

dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.

(10) For determining suppression or falseinformation attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was

required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same

can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such case action cannot be taken on basis of

suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.

(11) Before a person is held guilty of suppressio verior suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.â€​

Learned counsel for the respondent assures this Court that the appropriate consideration shall be made strictly in light of the precedent law of Avtar

Singh (supra).

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to make appropriate consideration and pass fresh

order, strictly in light of the precedent law of Avtar Singh (supra). Such consideration shall be made by the respondents within a period of 30 days

from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. It is made clear that any previous order passed by respondents in the case of the petitioner

shall not be an impediment in making such fresh consideration.