- (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 29.4.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 265/2004 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed and thus denial of appointment to the petitioner/appellant on the post of Jail guard was upheld by the learned Single Judge.
(2.) The circumstances which gave an occasion to the petitioner/appellant to file a writ petition arose when the petitioner/appellant appeared for the interview for the post of Jail Guard in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 3.1.1999. The interview for the post was held on 22nd Jane, 2003 and on the said date a criminal case against the petitioner/appellant was pending under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC alongwith allied sections as a First Information Report bearing No. 44/2002 was registered at Police Station Jaswantgarh, District Nagaur which had been lodged against the petitioner on 16.6.2002 and was still pending investigation. The petitioner did not disclose in the relevant form indicating that there was a criminal case pending against him due to which he was interviewed after which he was declared pass as per the result published in the newspaper. But before he could be granted appointment on the post of Jail Guard, the authorities came to know that a criminal case was pending against the petitioner when he had been interviewed and yet he had suppressed the fact from the authorities regarding pendency of a criminal case and his antecedents. He was, therefore, denied appointment to the post of Jail Guard. The petitioner being aggrieved with the denial of appointment filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge which was dismissed in limine as indicated hereinbefore against which this appeal has been preferred.
(3.) The counsel, in support of the case of the appellant, relied upon the authority of the Supreme Court reported in 1999 (1) SCC 246 delivered in the : matter of Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Anr. v. Dhaval Singh wherein the appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi was dismissed holding therein that the respondent Dhaval Singh in the said matter although did not disclose regarding the pendency of criminal case against him on the date of the interview, the same was communicated to the authorities as soon as he came to know of the pendency of the criminal case against the respondent therein. The respondent, therefore, had been interviewed and was also selected by the competent authorities but was later denied appointment which did not find favour with the High Court and he was ordered to be appointed on the post. This judgment and order of the High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court in the reported judgment referred to hereinabove. Placing reliance on this matter, it was submitted that in the instant matter also the petitioner/appellant . should have been granted appointment because although he had not disclosed the information regarding the pendency of a criminal case against him, the same was disclosed to the authorities at a subsequent date. But when the facts of the petitioner's case are compared with the facts of the case in which the Supreme Court has upheld the appointment of Shri Dhaval Singh, we have noticed that the case of the petitioner/appellant is clearly distinguishable as the incumbent Dhaval Singh in the reported case was not at all aware of any case pending against him when he was interviewed and as soon as he came to know of it, he had written a categorical letter to the authorities informing them that a case was pending against him which means that the incumbent Dhaval Singh was not aware of any case. pending against him on the date of his interview whereas in the instant matter the petitioner/appellant was fully aware that a case was pending against him and yet he did not disclose this fact in the specific column which was printed in the application form. Not being aware of pendency of the criminal case is one situation but not disclosing the same inspite of the knowledge of pendency of a criminal case is altogether different and cannot be treated on par. The petitioner--ire the present matter although was aware of the case, he obviously did not disclose it Ao gain advantage of employment, which clearly amounts to suppression of material fact from the authorities. The position of course would have been otherwise and would have gained strength from the reported case of the Supreme Court if he also had been unaware of the criminal case on the date of interview as was the situation in the matter of Commissioner of Police Delhi v. Dhaval Singh (supra). The petitioner/appellant in the instant matter was fully aware of the criminal case pending against him even on the date when he filled the form and yet he suppressed this material fact although the i legal requirement was to disclose this fact. The denial of appointment is not on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him but was on the ground that he was guilty of suppressing material fact from the authorities which disqualified him from seeking the appointment. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and hence, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Writ Petition Dismissed.;