Umeshwar Pandey, J. - (1.) -The petitioner, Arvind Kumar Rai, a candidate initially declared successful in the Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services (Main) Examination, 1991, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the orders passed by respondent No. 1, U. P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') dated 2.12.1996 (Annexure-5) and dated 10.6.1997 (Annexure-7) whereby his candidature to the aforesaid examination was cancelled and his representation for review of the said order was rejected.
(2.) IN short, the facts are that the petitioner, after having been finally, selected and declared successful as per the Press Release (Annexure-1) of the Commission to the aforesaid examination was waiting for his letter of appointment to be issued from the State Government on this basis of rank held by him in the merit. He was expecting his appointment on the post of District Commandant, Home Guard. His medical examination as per the rules was also conducted on 9.8.1994 and he was found medically fit for such appointment. He, however, did not receive appointment letter and, on inquiry, it was gathered that the juniors in the merit had received appointment letters. He, thereafter, made inquiries but did not receive any reply, either from the State Government or from the Commission. Ultimately, in August, 1996 he received a show cause notice (Annexure-3) from the office of Commission stating that he deliberately concealed informations regarding his having been held guilty for the offence of murder, etc. during trial before the court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. He knowingly did not fill up the Column 15 (Ka) of the application form for his candidature to the examination and also he did not fill up and give the aforesaid information as required in Column 11 (Ka) of the attestation form which he was required to fill before appearing in the interview of the combined examination. He was asked to explain the circumstances under which he concealed the information of his involvement in the murder case and of having been held guilty for the same by the trial court. Upon receiving the aforesaid notice, the petitioner sent his reply (Annexure-4), but the Commission having not been satisfied with the explanation, cancelled his candidature for the aforesaid combined examination of the year 1991, vide impugned order dated 2.12.1996 (Annexure-5). Later on, when the petitioner made a representation (Annexure-6) before the Commission, that too did not find favour with respondent No. 1 and the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 10.6.1997 (Annexure-7) ; hence, this petition. The Commission, respondent No. 1 has filed counter-affidavit and disputed the bona fide of the petitioner in the whole affair. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner not only concealed the information of his involvement in the murder case and his subsequent conviction on having been found guilty for those offences by the trial court but he also concealed his permanent residential address of village Haraiya, Police Station Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh by deliberately giving incorrect address of his permanent residence being EWS-32, Muirabad, A.D.A. colony, Allahabad in the application form. The facts of petitioner's involvement in the criminal case and his subsequent conviction by the trial court had come to light only on a complaint received in the Government. It was further stated on behalf of the Commission that in the attestation form, which is filed by the candidate before his interview, a certificate was required to be given. The petitioner signed the said certificate stating that the informations, which he has furnished in the attestation form, were wholly correct though he had left blank the relevant Column 11 (Ka) of the said form which required the petitioner to give information, if he has been prosecuted, kept in detention, bound, fined or has been held guilty for some offence by the Court. By leaving the said column blank, the petitioner had deliberately withheld the aforesaid information of his involvement in the criminal case and later on conviction recorded by the trial court. On receiving the complaint of the aforesaid concealment, etc. about the petitioner's involvement in the criminal case the same was sent by the Commission to the Government. The State Government thereafter sent back the complaint to the Commission (respondent No. 1) to take decision in the matter for cancellation of candidature of the petitioner. On scrutiny of the facts and circumstances and on obtaining explanation of the petitioner, the Commission was of the opinion that in view of the entire episode of concealment of important facts relating to petitioner's involvement in the criminal case and his having been found guilty for the offences of murder etc. by the trial court, his candidature should be rejected and thereafter only the impugned order was passed and communicated to the Government and the petitioner.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsels Sri Arun Tandon for the petitioner. Sri Pushpendra Singh for respondent No. 1 and learned standing counsel for respondent No. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he had been declared successful after written Examination and interview etc. for the aforesaid Combined State Services Examination of 1991 ; he was also found medically fit at the medical examination and was just by inadvertence that the petitioner while filling his form of the said examination, left Column 15 (Ka) blank which required the candidate to give information of his involvement in a criminal case or his trial or conviction before a criminal court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in the same manner because of inadvertence only the attestation form which the petitioner had filled before his interview, Column 11 (Ka) w?s left blank. He gave full justification of leaving the said column blank in his explanation submitted to the Commission while replying to the show cause notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further tried to stress that the petitioner, when came to know of the mistake of leaving the columns blank, he volunteered entire information of his involvement in the criminal case and subsequent court verdict holding him guilty in the said case, to the Commission vide his letter dated 21st July, 1994. It is urged that these events show and reflect bona fides of the petitioner.;