- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to declare him eligible for appointment and do not reject his candidature for appointment on the post of Constable for the reason that criminal case was registered against him in which he was released on probation.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner is seeking the aforesaid direction on the ground that in case of Rai Sahib decided by this Court while following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sandeep Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration passed in Civil Appeal No.31430/2007 by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17.3.2011, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that appointment should not be denied on the ground that criminal case was registered against the applicant for petty offence in which he was released on probation or on the basis of compromise, therefore, the respondents may kindly be directed to provide appointment to the petitioner ignoring the fact that the criminal case was registered against him. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., reported in AIR 2013 SC p.3325, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is the duty of the candidates to fill in column meant for seeking information with regard to involvement in criminal case and if material information is suppressed by the candidates then he will not be entitled for appointment, therefore, according to learned counsel for the respondents the ratio of the controversy decided in case of Devendra Kumar's case, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment because he has concealed material information while filling up column No.13 of the application form in which he did not mention and give information with regard to criminal case registered against him but subsequently it was found upon character verification that the petitioner was involved in the criminal case registered against him at Police Station Ramgarhin which after investigation the challan was filed but ultimaterly he was released on probation because the petitioner has suppressed the material fact for seeking appointment.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire writ petition so also Para -4 of the reply. In para No.4 of the reply it is specifically pointed out by the respondents that in the application form submitted by the petitioner in column No.13, no information was furnished by him with regard to registration of criminal case against him at Police Station Ramgarh. Meaning thereby as per the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Devendra Kumar (supra), the petitioner is not entitled for appointment because following adjudication is made by Hon'ble Suprem Court in aforesaid case : - "22. In the instant case, the High Court has placed reliance on the Govt. Order dated April 28, 1958 relating to verification of the character of a Government servant, upon first appointment, wherein the individual is required to furnish information about criminal antecedents of the new appointees and if the incumbent is found to have made a false statement in this regard, he is liable to be discharged forthwith without prejudice to any other action as may be considered necessary by the competent authority. The purpose of seeking such information is not to find out the nature or gravity of the offence or the ultimate result of a criminal case, rather such information is sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the job seeker or suitability to continue in service. Withholding such material information or making false representation itself amounts to moral turpitude and is a separate and distinct matter altogether than what is involved in the criminal case. 23. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify the same. "Subla Fundamento cedit opus" - a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent Court. In such a case the legal maxim Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria applies. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. (Vide: Union of India v. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav, AIR 1996 SC 1340; and Lily Thomas v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1650). Nor can a person claim any right arising out of his own wrong doing. (Juri Ex Injuria Non Oritur). 24. The courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the appellant suppressed material information sought by the employer as to whether he had ever been involved in a criminal case. Suppression of material information sought by the employer or furnishing false information itself amounts to moral turpitude and is separate and distinct from the involvement in a criminal case. In view of the above, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed." ;