High Court

1. Heard Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Paritosh Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul Agrawal, Advocate for respondents.

2. It is not under much dispute that petitioner has faced a criminal trial for offences under Sections 147, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC, which was pending when petitioner has submitted an online form for Group ‘D’ post in the year 2018 and admittedly he has made a wrong declaration in the column of “Do you have any Criminal Proceeding details”, as he has mentioned word ‘No’.

3. Petitioner has tried to cure aforesaid error only after he was selected and at the stage of verification of record by way of filing an notarized affidavit dated

21.02.2019 wherein in para 3 he disclosed that he is facing aforesaid criminal trial.

4. In aforesaid circumstances, when petitioner was not given appointment, he approached the Grievance Committee, however, by a communication dated

18.06.2024 from District Judge, Prayagraj, the prayer of petitioner was rejected on two grounds. Firstly, that petitioner has not disclosed correct information and secondly, that select list has already expired and claim cannot be considered after six years, even on ground that petitioner was later on acquitted in aforesaid criminal trial vide judgment dated 25.04.2024 since prosecution was failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner’s case can still be considered though he has not disputed that life of select list is normally one year. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is now acquitted and it was a bona fide mistake that word ‘No’ has been mentioned in relevant column.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that petitioner was tried to mislead the employer and despite having complete knowledge that he was facing a criminal trial, he has mentioned word ‘No’ against the relevant column with regard to pendency of any criminal case. Petitioner is granted acquittal in the year 2024 and now select list has already expired, therefore, even on basis of acquittal, no relief can be granted to him. He also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Sewak vs. Honble High Court Judicature At Allahabad, 2024:AHC:106410-DB and for reference paras 16 and 17 of the judgment is reproduced hereinafter: “16. In view of the aforesaid factual situation, it is apparent that the petitioner was having full knowledge about the criminal case during document verification and he has concealed the material fact while swearing the affidavit at the time of getting employment. Later on at the time of document verification and at the time of verifying his criminal antecedents, it was found that criminal case was pending against him and the same had been concealed. The verification of character and antecedents of an employee are to be ensured by the employer. The character and integrity of a candidate, who is seeking appointment in the District Judgeship must be impeccable and his/ her antecedents should be clean. If a person, whose integrity is doubtful, and his/ her antecedents are not clean, he cannot claim appointment as the same may adversely affect the institution. Moreover, it is well settled that even the acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the applicant for appointment to the post. Still, it is open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether he is suitable for appointment to the post. Whereas in the present matter, the dispute relates to furnishing false information at the time of appointment. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to pending criminal case, such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling the candidature. If the criminal case was pending and known to the candidate at the time of filling up the form or swearing the affidavit, the concealing of the same may have adverse impact in the organisation. 17. Rule 15 of U.P. State District Court Service Rules, 2013 deals with conditions relating to suitability and certificates of characters. According to this Rule, no person shall be appointed unless the appointing authority is satisfied that he is of good character and is in all respect suitable for appointment to the service. Every candidate selected for direct recruitment shall furnish to the appointing authority certificates not more than six months prior to the date of selection, by two respectable persons unconnected with his school, college or university, and not related to him, testifying to his character, in addition to the certificate or certificates which may be required to be furnished from the education institution last attended by the candidate. If any doubt arises regarding the suitability of a candidate for appointment the decision of the High Court shall be final.”

7. I have considered the above submissions and perused the material on record. As referred above, petitioner was not careful while submitting online application form and has made incorrect detail that he was not facing any criminal trial, which was not factually correct. Petitioner’s claim was rejected on ground that he has made an incorrect declaration in online form and an attempt to cure it by way of filing notarized affidavit was not accepted. Even the Grievance Committee has rejected claim when petitioner moved an application after he got acquittal in criminal case, mainly on ground that it was a case of suppression of material facts as well as that now no select list is alive.

8. In aforesaid circumstances, an attempt to cure defect by way of a notarized affidavit as well as that petitioner got acquittal recently in the year 2024, would not help him since it will not cure the defect of making incorrect details in online application form. Life of a select list is only one year as well as vacant post has already been filled. Therefore, no circumstances exist for interference.

9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 AK

1. Heard Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Paritosh Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul Agrawal, Advocate for respondents.

2. It is not under much dispute that petitioner has faced a criminal trial for offences under Sections 147, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC, which was pending when petitioner has submitted an online form for Group ‘D’ post in the year 2018 and admittedly he has made a wrong declaration in the column of “Do you have any Criminal Proceeding details”, as he has mentioned word ‘No’.

3. Petitioner has tried to cure aforesaid error only after he was selected and at the stage of verification of record by way of filing an notarized affidavit dated

21.02.2019 wherein in para 3 he disclosed that he is facing aforesaid criminal trial.

4. In aforesaid circumstances, when petitioner was not given appointment, he approached the Grievance Committee, however, by a communication dated

18.06.2024 from District Judge, Prayagraj, the prayer of petitioner was rejected on two grounds. Firstly, that petitioner has not disclosed correct information and secondly, that select list has already expired and claim cannot be considered after six years, even on ground that petitioner was later on acquitted in aforesaid criminal trial vide judgment dated 25.04.2024 since prosecution was failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner’s case can still be considered though he has not disputed that life of select list is normally one year. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is now acquitted and it was a bona fide mistake that word ‘No’ has been mentioned in relevant column.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that petitioner was tried to mislead the employer and despite having complete knowledge that he was facing a criminal trial, he has mentioned word ‘No’ against the relevant column with regard to pendency of any criminal case. Petitioner is granted acquittal in the year 2024 and now select list has already expired, therefore, even on basis of acquittal, no relief can be granted to him. He also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Sewak vs. Honble High Court Judicature At Allahabad, 2024:AHC:106410-DB and for reference paras 16 and 17 of the judgment is reproduced hereinafter: “16. In view of the aforesaid factual situation, it is apparent that the petitioner was having full knowledge about the criminal case during document verification and he has concealed the material fact while swearing the affidavit at the time of getting employment. Later on at the time of document verification and at the time of verifying his criminal antecedents, it was found that criminal case was pending against him and the same had been concealed. The verification of character and antecedents of an employee are to be ensured by the employer. The character and integrity of a candidate, who is seeking appointment in the District Judgeship must be impeccable and his/ her antecedents should be clean. If a person, whose integrity is doubtful, and his/ her antecedents are not clean, he cannot claim appointment as the same may adversely affect the institution. Moreover, it is well settled that even the acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the applicant for appointment to the post. Still, it is open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether he is suitable for appointment to the post. Whereas in the present matter, the dispute relates to furnishing false information at the time of appointment. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to pending criminal case, such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling the candidature. If the criminal case was pending and known to the candidate at the time of filling up the form or swearing the affidavit, the concealing of the same may have adverse impact in the organisation. 17. Rule 15 of U.P. State District Court Service Rules, 2013 deals with conditions relating to suitability and certificates of characters. According to this Rule, no person shall be appointed unless the appointing authority is satisfied that he is of good character and is in all respect suitable for appointment to the service. Every candidate selected for direct recruitment shall furnish to the appointing authority certificates not more than six months prior to the date of selection, by two respectable persons unconnected with his school, college or university, and not related to him, testifying to his character, in addition to the certificate or certificates which may be required to be furnished from the education institution last attended by the candidate. If any doubt arises regarding the suitability of a candidate for appointment the decision of the High Court shall be final.”

7. I have considered the above submissions and perused the material on record. As referred above, petitioner was not careful while submitting online application form and has made incorrect detail that he was not facing any criminal trial, which was not factually correct. Petitioner’s claim was rejected on ground that he has made an incorrect declaration in online form and an attempt to cure it by way of filing notarized affidavit was not accepted. Even the Grievance Committee has rejected claim when petitioner moved an application after he got acquittal in criminal case, mainly on ground that it was a case of suppression of material facts as well as that now no select list is alive.

8. In aforesaid circumstances, an attempt to cure defect by way of a notarized affidavit as well as that petitioner got acquittal recently in the year 2024, would not help him since it will not cure the defect of making incorrect details in online application form. Life of a select list is only one year as well as vacant post has already been filled. Therefore, no circumstances exist for interference.

9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 AK