LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Suitability of the candidate rather than incorrect affidavit to be examined in recruitment

Isaac Gabriel ,
  26 September 2011       Share Bookmark

Court :
Supreme court
Brief :
the appointing authority has mechanically held that his selection was irregular and illegal because the appellant had furnished an 8affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the time of recruitment. 1
Citation :
Ram Kumar Vs State of UP Civil Appeal No.7106 of 2011 dated19-8-2011

 

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7106 OF 2011       

[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 12091 of 2010]

Ram Kumar          …… Appellant

Versus

State of U. P. & Ors.    …… Respondents

O R D E R

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

Leave granted.

2. This is an appeal against the order dated 31.08.2009 of

the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Special

Appeal No.924 of 2009 dismissing the appeal of the appellant

against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition

(C) No.40674 of 2007.

3. The facts very briefly are that pursuant to an

advertisement issued by the State Government of U.P. on19.11.2006, the appellant applied for the post of constable and

he submitted an affidavit dated 12.06.2006 to the recruiting

authority in the proforma of verification roll. In the affidavit

dated 12.06.2006, he made various statements required for

the purpose of recruitment and in para 4 of the affidavit he

stated that no criminal case was registered against him. He

was selected and appointed as a male constable and deputed

for training. Thereafter, the Jaswant Nagar Police Station,

District Etawah, submitted a report dated 15.01.2007 stating

that Criminal Case No.275/2001 under Sections

324/323/504 IPC was registered against the appellant and

thereafter the criminal case was disposed of by the Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, on 18.07.2002 and the

appellant was acquitted by the Court. Along with this report,

a copy of the order dated 18.07.2002 of the Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate was also enclosed. The report dated

15.01.2007 of the Jaswant Nagar Police Station, District

Etawah, was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police,

Ghaziabad. By order dated 08.08.2007, the Senior

Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, cancelled the order of

2selection of the appellant on the ground that he had submitted

an affidavit stating wrong facts and concealing correct facts

and his selection was irregular and illegal.

4. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.40674 of

2007 under Article 226 of the Constitution before the

Allahabad High Court but the learned Single Judge dismissed

the writ petition by his order dated 30.08.2007. The learned

Single Judge held that since the appellant had furnished false

information in his affidavit in the proforma verification roll, his

case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this

Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram

Ratan Yadav [(2003) 3 SCC 437] and that he was rightly

terminated from service without any inquiry. The appellant

challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in Special

Appeal No.924 of 2009 but the Division Bench of the High

Court did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the

same by the impugned order dated 31.08.2009.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

appellant had been acquitted by the order dated 18.07.2002 of

the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case

3No.275 of 2001 and for this reason when the appellant

furnished the affidavit dated 12.06.2006 in the prescribed

verification roll, four years after the order of the acquittal, he

did not think it necessary to state in the affidavit about this

criminal case. He submitted that in any case, a copy of the

order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal

Case No.275 of 2001 would show that the crime related to a

minor incident which took place on 02.12.2000 and as there

was no evidence against the appellant, the Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate acquitted the appellant of the charges

under Sections 324/34/504 IPC. He submitted that therefore

this is not a fit case in which the selection of the appellant

should have been cancelled. He cited Commissioner of Police

and Others v. Sandeep Kumar [2011(3) SCALE 606] in which

this Court has taken a view that cancellation of candidature to

the post of temporary Head Constable for the suppression and

failure to disclose in the verification roll/application about his

involvement in an incident resulting in a criminal case under

Sections 325/34 of the IPC when the candidate was a young

man, was not justified.

46. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,

supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as

the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court.

Besides relying on the judgment of this Court in Kendriya

Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra),

he also relied on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the

respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and in particular the Government

Order dated 28.04.1958 under which a verification had to be

carried out with regard to the character of the candidate who

was being considered for appointment. He submitted that in

accordance with the Government instructions in the

Government Order dated 28.04.1958, candidates desiring

appointment to various posts in Government service were

required to submit a detailed affidavit furnishing details of

their character and antecedents.

7. We have carefully read the Government Order dated

28.04.1958 on the subject ‘Verification of the character and

antecedents of government servants before their first

appointment’ and it is stated in the Government order that the

5Governor has been pleased to lay down the following

instructions in supercession of all the previous orders: 

“The rule regarding character of candidate for

appointment under the State Government shall

continue to be as follows:

The character of a candidate for direct

appointment must be such as to render him

suitable in all respects for employment in the

service or post to which he is to be appointed.

It would be duty of the appointing authority

to satisfy itself on this point.”

It will be clear from the aforesaid instructions issued by the

Governor that the object of the verification of the character

and antecedents of government servants before their first

appointment is to ensure that the character of a government

servant for a direct recruitment is such as to render him

suitable in all respects for employment in the service or post to

which he is to be appointed and it would be a duty of the

appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point.

8. In the facts of the present case, we find that though

Criminal Case No.275 of 2001 under Sections 324/323/504

IPC had been registered against the appellant at Jaswant

Nagar Police Station, District Etawah, admittedly the appellant

6had been acquitted by order dated 18.07.2002 by the

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah. On a reading of

the order dated 18.07.2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate would show that the sole witness examined before

the Court, PW-1 Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, had deposed before the

Court that on 02.12.2000 at 4.00 p.m. children were

quarrelling and at that time the appellant, Shailendra and

Ajay Kumar amongst other neighbours had reached there and

someone from the crowd hurled abuses and in the scuffle

Akhilesh Kumar got injured when he fell and his head hit a

brick platform and that he was not beaten by the accused

persons by any sharp weapon. In the absence of any other

witness against the appellant, the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate acquitted the appellant of the charges under

Sections 323/34/504 IPC. On these facts, it was not at all

possible for the appointing authority to take a view that the

appellant was not suitable for appointment to the post of a

police constable.

9. The order dated 18.07.2002 of the Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate had been sent along with the report dated

715.01.2007 of the Jaswant Nagar Police Station to the Senior

Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, but it appears from the

order dated 08.08.2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police,

Ghaziabad, that he has not gone into the question as to

whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to service

or to the post of constable in which he was appointed and he

has only held that the selection of the appellant was illegal

and irregular because he did not furnish in his affidavit in the

proforma of verification roll that a criminal case has been

registered against him. As has been stated in the instructions

in the Government Order dated 28.04.1958, it was the duty of

the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, as the

appointing authority, to satisfy himself on the point as to

whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the

post of a constable, with reference to the nature of

suppression and nature of the criminal case. Instead of

considering whether the appellant was suitable for

appointment to the post of male constable, the appointing

authority has mechanically held that his selection was

irregular and illegal because the appellant had furnished an

8affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the time of

recruitment.

10. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram

Ratan Yadav (supra) relied on by the respondents, a criminal

case had been registered under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506-B

read with Section 34 IPC and was pending against the

respondent in that case and the respondent had suppressed

this material in the attestation form. The respondent,

however, contended that the criminal case was subsequently

withdrawn and the offences in which the respondent was

alleged to have been involved were also not of serious nature.

On these facts, this Court held that the respondent was to

serve as a Physical Education Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya

and he could not be suitable for appointment as the character,

conduct and antecedents of a teacher will have some impact

on the minds of the students of impressionable age and if the

authorities had dismissed him from service for suppressing

material information in the attestation form, the decision of

the authorities could not be interfered with by the High Court.

The facts of the case in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and

9Others v. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra) are therefore materially

different from the facts of the present case and the decision

does not squarely cover the case of the appellant as has been

held by the High Court.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside

the order of the learned Single Judge and the impugned order

of the Division Bench and allow the writ petition of the

appellant and quash the order dated 08.08.2007 of the Senior

Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. The appellant will be

taken back in service within a period of two months from

today but he will not be entitled to any back wages for the

period he has remained out of service. There shall be no order

as to costs.

……………………..J.

                                                                   (R. V.

Raveendran)

……………………..J.

                                                                   (A. K.

Patnaik)

New Delhi,

August 19, 2011.   

1

 
"Loved reading this piece by Isaac Gabriel?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Labour & Service Law
Views : 2437




Comments






Latest Judgments


More »


Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query