TRIVEDI, J. - (1.) THE present appeal is directed against the order dated 3.5.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6702/2012, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, having found to be devoid of merits.
(2.) THE case of the present appellant-original petitioner, before the learned Single Judge was that he had applied for the appointment on the post of Constable(General), pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents and he qualified all the tests for the selection on the said post, however, he was not given any appointment. The petitioner was informed that he had suppressed material fact by not disclosing the pendency of criminal case in the application form submitted by him, as he was involved in the criminal case no. 106/2010, pending before the Court of A.C.J.M., Shahpura, District Jaipur, for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC. The petitioner therefore, had challenged the said action of the respondents in not giving the appointment for the said post, by filing the said writ petition. It has been submitted by learned counsel Mr. Anoop Dhand, for the appellant that the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that there was no suppression of material fact in view of the Circular dated 1.11.2011, as the petitioner was given benefit of probation in the said criminal case. He further submitted that even if it was treated as suppression of fact regarding pendency of criminal case, the petitioner should not have been given such a harsh treatment in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Police Vs. Sandeep Kumar reported in 2011(4)SCC 644. On having duly considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that the learned Single Judge has duly considered the circular dated 1.11.2011, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. It has been rightly observed that the said circular would be applicable to those persons who were given benefit of probation, and not to the candidate who had suppressed the facts regarding pendency of criminal case. The said circular did not provide that suppression of fact of criminal case would not be material and could be condoned. Though the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Police Vs. Sandeep Kumar (supra), the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is needless to say that the purpose of seeking the information as regards the character and antecedents of the candidate is to assess the suitability of the candidate for the post in question, and therefore the candidate is duty bound to state correct facts without any concealment. The learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, reported in (2003)3 SCC 437 and Daya Shankar Yadav Versus Union of India and others reported in (2010)14 SCC 103, in which it has been held interalia that a candidate suppressing fact of criminal case is not entitled for appointment. There being no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, this Court does not find any merits in the present appeal. In that view of the matter, the appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed in limine.;