CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1014 of 2005 PETITIONER: Secy. Deptt. of Home Secy.A.P. & Ors. RESPONDENT: B. Chinnam Naidu DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/02/2005 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2269 of 2004
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to legality of the judgment of a
Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court setting aside the
order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short
the ‘Tribunal’) and holding that authorities were not justified in
denying appointment to the respondent.
A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice:
The respondent appeared for the recruitment test conducted for
the selection of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (Civil) in
Visakhapatnam. He was successful in the test and thereafter he was
subjected to medical test. After the two tests were over, he was
required to undergo training. But he was not sent for training on the
ground that the Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam by order dated
5.5.2003 had directed that he was not to be sent for training.
Questioning legality of such order, the respondent filed an Original
Application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the
examination for selection was conducted on 16.3.2003. Subsequently, he
underwent the physical test and was successful. By order dated
28.4.2003 the Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam informed the
respondent about his selection and directed him to report at the
District Police Office at Visakhapatnam for further medical test. He
was also directed to carry with him uniforms and other items necessary
for training which was organized at Central Police Lines, Amberpet.
Though, the respondent was subjected to medical examination he was not
allowed to join the training programme. He was informed that since he
had been arrested in crime No. 28/2000 on the file of Police Station,
Kukatpally, registered under various provisions of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and Andhra Pradesh Public Examination
Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means Act, 1997 he was not
eligible to be appointed. Before the Tribunal the respondent took the
stand that since he had not been charged and had not been convicted and
since he had no connection with the crime, the order of the
Superintendent of Police was not tenable. His further stand was that
the case was registered in respect of the earlier recruitment test in
the year 2000 and there was no reason to debar him since there was no
conviction, and, therefore, the action of the authority is not proper.
The present appellants filed counter-affidavit stating that before
final verification the respondent was permitted to appear in the
examination and the tests. Subsequently, it was noticed that the
respondent herein was arrested on 16.1.2000 and was sent to judicial
custody in the case referred to above. That case was under
investigation and Forensic Science Laboratory report was awaited. The
applicant while submitting Attestation Form after completion of written
examination did not mention about his arrest and the pending case which
he was required to do. Since he had suppressed the truth in terms of
the instructions laid down in Declaration at Cl. No. 3, the respondent
had incurred disqualification and he was not a fit person for
employment under the Government. The Tribunal noted that against Col.
No. 12 of the Attestation Form, the respondent had not mentioned about
the pending case and had not even indicated about his arrest. This
amounted to suppression of truth in the Attestation Form and
Declaration at column No.3. Therefore, in terms of the instructions he
had incurred disqualification and was unfit for employment under the
Government. The Tribunal held that the respondent was not a person of
good conduct and character since he had suppressed material information
while filling up the Attestation Form. He did not deserve any relief.
Accordingly the Original Application was dismissed.
The matter was challenged before the Andhra Pradesh High Court
and by the impugned judgment it was held that there was no requirement
under Column No. 12 to mention about any pending case or arrest and,
therefore, the action of the authorities, in not permitting the
respondent to join the training, cannot be sustained.
In support of the appeal the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellants submitted that the Tribunal had correctly held that
the respondent was guilty of suppression of material facts and taking
into consideration the conduct and character the Tribunal had rightly
held that he was not entitled to any relief, and High Court should not
have interfered with the order. Reference was made to some cases where
this Court has held that giving of incorrect reply and suppressing
material facts while filling up the Application Form or Attestation
Form or Declaration disentitles the candidate for any relief.
Particular reference was made to the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav [2003 (3) SCC 437].
In response, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that there was no requirement to mention about the arrest or the
pending case, therefore, High Court’s order is perfectly justified.
In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan’s case (supra) the factual
position can be ascertained from paragraphs 8 and 9 which read as
follows:
“8.- The Attestation Form dated 26.6.1998 duly
filled in by the respondent and attestation
show that the respondent has taken BA degree
from St. Aloysius College, JBP and Bed and Med
degrees from R. Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, JBP.
Columns 12 and 13 as filled up read thus:
“12.- Have you ever been prosecuted/kept under
detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a
court of law of any offence? – No.”
“13.- Is any case pending against you in any
court of law at the time of filling up this
Attestation Form?- No.”
“9.- The respondent has also certified the
information given in the said Attestation Form
as under:
“I certify that the foregoing information is
correct and complete to the best of my
knowledge and belief. I am not aware of any
circumstances which might impair my fitness for
employment under Government.”
As is noted in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan’s case (supra) the object
of requiring information in various columns like Column No. 12 of the
Attestation Form and declaration thereafter by the candidate is to
ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his
suitability to enter into or continue in service. When a candidate
suppresses material information and/or gives false information he
cannot claim any right for appointment or continuance in service.
There can be no dispute to this position in law. But on the facts of
the case it cannot be said that the respondent had made false
declaration or had suppressed material information.
In order to appreciate the rival submissions it is necessary to
take note of Column No. 12 of the Attestation Form and Column No.3 of
the declaration. The relevant portions are quoted below:
“Column No.12- Have you ever been convicted by a
court of law or detained under any State/Central
preventive detention laws for any offence whether
such conviction sustained in court of appeal or
set aside by the appellate court if appealed
against.”
“Column No.3- I am fully aware that furnishing of
false information or suppression of any actual
information in the Attestation Form would be a
disqualification and is likely to render me unfit
for employment under the Government.”
A bare perusal of the extracted portions show that the candidate
is required to indicate as to whether he has ever been convicted by a
court of law or detained under any State/Central preventive detention
laws for any offences whether such conviction is sustained or set aside
by the appellate court, if appealed against. The candidate is not
required to indicate as to whether he had been arrested in any case or
as to whether any case was pending. Conviction by a court or detention
under any State/Central Preventive Detention Laws is different from
arrest in any case or pendency of a case. By answering that the
respondent had not been convicted or detained under Preventive
Detention Laws it cannot be said that he had suppressed any material
fact or had furnished any false information or suppressed any
information in the Attestation Form to incur disqualification. The
State Government and the Tribunal appeared to have proceeded on the
basis that the respondent ought to have indicated the fact of arrest or
pendency of the case, though column No. 12 of the Attestation Form did
not require such information being furnished. The learned counsel for
the appellants submitted that such a requirement has to be read into an
Attestation Form. We find no reason to accept such contention. There
was no specific requirement to mention as to whether any case is
pending or whether the applicant had been arrested. In view of the
specific language so far as Column No. 12 is concerned the respondent
cannot be found guilty of any suppression.
In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan’s case (supra), the position was
the reverse. There the candidate took the stand that as there was no
conviction, his negative answers to columns 12 to 13 were not wrong.
This Court did not accept the stand that requirement was conviction and
not prosecution in view of the information required under columns 12
and 13 as quoted above. The requirement was “prosecution” and not
“conviction”. The logic has application here. The requirement in the
present case is “conviction” and not “prosecution”.
The question whether he was a desirable person to be appointed in
Government service was not the subject matter of adjudication and the
Tribunal was not justified in recording any finding in that regard.
Whether a person is fit to be appointed or not is a matter within the
special domain of the Government. For denying somebody appointment
after he is selected, though he has no right to be appointed, has to be
governed by some statutory provisions. That was not the issue which
was to be adjudicated in the present case. The only issue related to
suppression of facts or mis-declaration.
In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in this appeal which
is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.