PANWAR, J. - (1.) BY the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his case and appoint him on the post of Constable (G. D. ).
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement Annex. 1 dated 14. 6. 2005 inviting applications from the eligible persons for appointment on the post of constable (General Duty, Band, Horse Rider and Operator ). THE petitioner finding himself eligible submitted application for appointment on the post of Constable (G. D.) vide Annex. 2. THE petitioner appeared in the examination and thereafter he was called to appear in the physical test/ interview vide call letter dated 24. 2. 2006 Annex. 3. THE petitioner appeared in the physical test held on 12. 3. 2006 and on 13. 3. 2006 he was declared passed and the result thereof was published in the newspaper vide Annex. 4. However, the petitioner was not issued the appointment letter and as such has not been appointed, therefore, he sent representations vide Annex. 5 and Annex. 6. Despite representations, the respondents did not provide the petitioner appointment and hence this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents stating therein that the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed on the post of constable for the reason that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner before the competent Court of law at the time of submitting the application form on 13. 7. 2005 which the petitioner has deliberately concealed and did not disclose in the application form and therefore, the petitioner has deliberately concealed the material facts dis- entitling him for appointment on the said post. Though the petitioner has tried to make out a case subsequent to the submission of the application that he has sent a letter through UPC to the Supdt. Of Police, Sirohi intimating the pendency of the criminal case, but the respondents specifically came with a case that no such letter was ever received by the Supdt. of Police, Sirohi and have come with a case that sending of letter by UPC is only an after thought and in order to over reach the deliberate concealment made by the petitioner himself. Even the petitioner in the writ petition has stated that he sent the representation by registered post. There was no occasion for the petitioner having sent such a communication by UPC. This clearly goes to show that no such intimation was sent by the petitioner to the Supdt. of Police, Sirohi. It has also been specifically denied by the respondents of having received any such communication from the petitioner. Be that as it may. It is a fact that the petitioner has concealed the material fact at the time of submission of the application form knowing well that if he discloses the fact that there is pendency of criminal case against him, he would not be entitled to be considered and therefore, such a serious act of concealment of material facts disentitles the petitioner for consideration and appointment. Learned Deputy Government Advocate has relied on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and Others vs. Sushil Kumar (1996) 11 SCC 605 and a Full Bench decision of this Court in Dharampal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2000 (2) WLC (Raj.) 400, in Ashwani Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors. 2001 Western Law Cases (Raj.) UC, 548.
(3.) IN Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and Others vs. Sushil Kumar (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though the respondent was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable in the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. In Dharampal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) the Full Bench of this Court had considered a large number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including Delhi Administration vs. Sushil Kumar (supra) and held that suppressing such a material information amounts to making an attempt to get employment by misrepresentation/ fraud and in such a case, the suppression of material information itself amounts to moral turpitude and it becomes immaterial whether the delinquent was involved in a criminal case involving moral turpitude or not. Particularly, for seeking employment in a disciplined force, such an attempt has to be dealt with seriously. The expression 'moral turpitude' came to be considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank vs. Deepak Kumar (1997) 4 SCC 1 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the following observations made by the Allahabad High Court in Baleshwar Singh vs. District Magistrate and Collector, AIR 1959 All. 71:- " The expression 'moral turpitude' is not defined anywhere. But it means anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. It implies depravity and wickedness of character or disposition of the person charged with the particular conduct. Every false statement made by a person may not be moral turpitude, but it would be so if it discloses vileness or depravity in the doing of any private and social duty which a person owes to his fellowmen or to the society in general, to act in a specific manner or not to so act and he still acts contrary to it and does so knowingly, his conduct must be held to be due to vileness and depravity. It will be contrary to accepted customary rule and duty between man and man. " ;