- (1.)Delay condoned.
Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.03.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 40809 of 2010 (S-KAT) wherein the High Court after adverting to certain factual aspects and rival legal contentions and following the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Dhaval Singh, Bangalore, 1999 AIR(SC) 2326 the impugned order, passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), insofar as the Appellant herein is concerned, was interfered with by allowing the writ petition filed by the Respondents herein and the same is under challenge by raising certain substantial questions of law and urging various grounds in support of the same.

(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:
"12. Have you ever been arrested in any criminal cases: Yes.....; No......, if yes, furnish details.

13. Are you facing any trial for any criminal cases

Yes......; No.......

If yes, furnish details."

(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.