Gaurav Singh vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

1. Heard Mr. Prabhaat Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties 1, 3 and 4 while power on behalf of opposite party no.2 has been filed by Mr. Prashast Puri, Advocate, which is taken on record.

2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 13.11.2025 whereby petitioner's representation for appointment on the post of Junior Clerk in pursuance of select list dated 25.08.2025 has been rejected.

3. From material on record, it is evident that petitioner had earlier also filed Writ - A No. - 12314 of 2025 which was disposed of vide order dated 16.10.2025 directing authorities concerned to consider petitioner's grievance in view of fact that his name features in the select list. It is pursuance thereof that the impugned order has been passed rejecting such representation primarily on ground that a Criminal Case bearing no.91 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. has been registered against petitioner in police station concerned in Raebareli.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 to submit that it has been clearly held that in such circumstances, parameters indicated in aforesaid judgment are required to be considered by appointing authority prior to rejection of such claim only on basis of pendency of a criminal case.

5. From a perusal of aforesaid judgment, it is evident that for 2 WRIA No. 14308 of 2025 purposes of appointment, termination etc., it is incumbent upon authority concerned to consider relevant aspects as indicated in judgment and appointment or termination of an employee cannot be denied or issued only on ground of pendency of criminal proceedings. The relevant paragraphs in said judgment are as follows:- "38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate 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.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of 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 recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been 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.

38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving 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.

38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character 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.

38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect 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 appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases 3 WRIA No. 14308 of 2025 were pending may not be proper.

38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known 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.

38.9. 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.

38.10. For determining suppression or false information 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 cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.

38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."

6. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances, it is evident that the parameters indicated in aforesaid judgment have not been considered by authority concerned who has passed impugned order only on ground of pendency of criminal proceedings.

7. In view of aforesaid discussion, it being evident that relevant factors as enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra) having not been followed, the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in nature of Certiorari granting i.e. Director (Administration), Office of Directorate (Administration), Medical and Health Services U.P., Lucknow to pass orders afresh for taking into account the parameters indicated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh(supra). Appropriate orders shall be passed expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon said authority. to opposite party no.4 liberty

8. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. December 17, 2025 kvg/- (Manish Mathur,J.) GIREESAN KV GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Mr. Prabhaat Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties 1, 3 and 4 while power on behalf of opposite party no.2 has been filed by Mr. Prashast Puri, Advocate, which is taken on record.

2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 13.11.2025 whereby petitioner's representation for appointment on the post of Junior Clerk in pursuance of select list dated 25.08.2025 has been rejected.

3. From material on record, it is evident that petitioner had earlier also filed Writ - A No. - 12314 of 2025 which was disposed of vide order dated 16.10.2025 directing authorities concerned to consider petitioner's grievance in view of fact that his name features in the select list. It is pursuance thereof that the impugned order has been passed rejecting such representation primarily on ground that a Criminal Case bearing no.91 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. has been registered against petitioner in police station concerned in Raebareli.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 to submit that it has been clearly held that in such circumstances, parameters indicated in aforesaid judgment are required to be considered by appointing authority prior to rejection of such claim only on basis of pendency of a criminal case.

5. From a perusal of aforesaid judgment, it is evident that for 2 WRIA No. 14308 of 2025 purposes of appointment, termination etc., it is incumbent upon authority concerned to consider relevant aspects as indicated in judgment and appointment or termination of an employee cannot be denied or issued only on ground of pendency of criminal proceedings. The relevant paragraphs in said judgment are as follows:- "38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate 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.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of 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 recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been 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.

38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving 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.

38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character 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.

38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect 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 appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases 3 WRIA No. 14308 of 2025 were pending may not be proper.

38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known 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.

38.9. 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.

38.10. For determining suppression or false information 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 cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.

38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."

6. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances, it is evident that the parameters indicated in aforesaid judgment have not been considered by authority concerned who has passed impugned order only on ground of pendency of criminal proceedings.

7. In view of aforesaid discussion, it being evident that relevant factors as enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra) having not been followed, the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in nature of Certiorari granting i.e. Director (Administration), Office of Directorate (Administration), Medical and Health Services U.P., Lucknow to pass orders afresh for taking into account the parameters indicated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh(supra). Appropriate orders shall be passed expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon said authority. to opposite party no.4 liberty

8. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. December 17, 2025 kvg/- (Manish Mathur,J.) GIREESAN KV GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench