MANJUNATHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay condoned.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the case are as follows. The Selection Authority published a Notification dated 7.06.2004 for vacancies to the post of Police Sub Inspector (Civil). Pursuant to the said notification, the Appellant herein submitted an application for selection to the post of Police Sub Inspector (Civil) claiming SC/ST, Rural and Kannada medium reservation. In the selection process, the Appellant secured 102.57 marks and as such his candidature was considered for the selection to the said post under general merit quota. However, the appointment order could not be issued since on police verification the Appellant herein was found as an accused in Crime No. 239/98 for the offence punishable Under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code. When the matter was committed to the Sessions Court, Bangalore Rural District, which was assigned to the Fast Track Court-I for trial, due to paucity of evidence inasmuch as most of the witnesses turned hostile and some of the witnesses did not turn up to depose along with the other accused, he was acquitted vide Order dated 23.04.2005 in S.C. No. 47/1999 passed by the Fast Track Court-I, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. The relevant aspect which is noticed by the Division Bench is when the application was submitted by the Appellant, he had information in respect of Column Nos. 12 and 13 of the Application Form which would relate to whether the applicant-Appellant is involved in any criminal case or any case has been registered against him. The relevant Column Nos. 12 and 13 read thus:

(3.) Further, on the date of the application submitted to the post of Police Sub Inspector (Civil), undoubtedly, a criminal case was registered against him along with others, therefore, his selection was found to be bad in law. However, he had obtained bail in anticipation of his arrest, which would necessarily mean that he was in the judicial custody. Column No. 12 of the application provides for seeking information whether the applicant has ever been arrested in any criminal case and if so required to furnish the details. The Appellant herein probably was of the view that since he was not taken into custody, he can furnish an information that he was not arrested. An identical question fell for consideration before this Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar, 2008 1 RCR(Cri) 725 , wherein this Court, in the facts of that case has given the benefit of a mistaken impression, rather than that of deliberate and willful misrepresentation and concealment of facts from the Selection and Appointing Authorities to get public employment.