# Arvind Kumar Rai v. The U.P. Public Service Commission and another

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 583
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-08-08
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.31746 of 1997
- **Bench:** A.K. Yog, Umeshwar Pandey
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arvind-kumar-rai-v-the-u-p-public-service-commission-and-another-40133
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution of India Article 226-Service
law selection-deliberate concealment of
criminal
conduct-petitioner
initially
declared
successful-on
complaint-his
candidature cancelled-plea of bonafide
mistake-conduct, projects his ulterior
motive and crafty approach-not fit for
appointment on gazetted post-petition
dismissed.

Held- Para 17 & 18

It is not only that the petitioner had left
to mention the pendency of criminal case
against
him,
but
had
deliberately
concealed the fact that in the said
criminal case he had already been
convicted by the Court of Sessions Judge
and in that connection he was also under
detention in the lock up/jail for some
time. In addition to this deliberate
concealment of fact, he while going to
appear for the interview held for such
merit examination, he gave a deliberate
false certificate in the attestation form.

As a matter of fact, we are convinced
that the petitioner has absolutely no
bona fide in the present matter which
could
entitle
him
to
obtain
a
discretionary relief under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, against the
impugned
orders
whereby
his
candidature
to
the
Combined
State
Services Examination (Civil) of the year
1991, had been cancelled.
AIR 1999SC page 2326 distinguished

## Text

2 All] Arvind Kumar Rai V. The U.P. Public Service Commission and another
583
respondents to pay the petitioner family
pension month by month in accordance
with law as was being paid on the basis of
the University order dated 8.2.1994
(Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition) and
refund Rs.44,824.55 along with 10%
simple interest per annum from the date it
is being deducted till the date it refunded
within four weeks of receipt of a certified
copy of this order. Further pensionary
benefits shall also be paid month by
month in accordance with law.

No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.08.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.K. YOG, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.31746 of 1997

Arvind Kumar Rai

...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Public Service Commission and
another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ajay Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India Article 226-Service
law selection-deliberate concealment of
criminal
conduct-petitioner
initially
declared
successful-on
complaint-his
candidature cancelled-plea of bonafide
mistake-conduct, projects his ulterior
motive and crafty approach-not fit for
appointment on gazetted post-petition
dismissed.

Held- Para 17 & 18

It is not only that the petitioner had left
to mention the pendency of criminal case
against
him,
but
had
deliberately
concealed the fact that in the said
criminal case he had already been
convicted by the Court of Sessions Judge
and in that connection he was also under
detention in the lock up/jail for some
time. In addition to this deliberate
concealment of fact, he while going to
appear for the interview held for such
merit examination, he gave a deliberate
false certificate in the attestation form.

As a matter of fact, we are convinced
that the petitioner has absolutely no
bona fide in the present matter which
could
entitle
him
to
obtain
a
discretionary relief under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, against the
impugned
orders
whereby
his
candidature
to
the
Combined
State
Services Examination (Civil) of the year
1991, had been cancelled.
AIR 1999SC page 2326 distinguished

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.)

1. The petitioner, Arvind Kumar
Rai,
a
candidate
initially
declared
successful in the Combined State/Upper
Subordinate
Services
(Main)
Examination, 1991, has approached this
Court
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India with a prayer to
quash the orders passed by respondent
no.1, U.P. Public Service Commission
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
the
'Commission')
dated
2.12.1996
(Annexure-5)
and
dated
10.6.1997
(Annexure-7) whereby his candidature to
the aforesaid examination was cancelled
and his representation for review of the
said order was rejected.

2. In short, the facts are that the
petitioner, after having been finally
selected and declared successful as per the
Press
Release
(Annexure-1)
of
the
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
584
Commission to the aforesaid examination
was waiting for his letter of appointment
to be issued from the State Government
on the basis of rank held by him in the
merit. He was expecting his appointment
on the post of District Commandant,
Home Guard. His medical examination as
per the rules was also conducted on
9.8.1994 and he was found medically fit
for such appointment. He, however, did
not receive appointment letter and, on
inquiry, it was gathered that the juniors in
the merit had received appointment
letters. He, thereafter, made inquiries but
did not receive any reply, either from the
State
Government
or
from
the
Commission. Ultimately, in August, 1996
he
received
a
show
cause
notice
(Annexure-3)
from
the
office
of
Commission stating that he deliberately
concealed informations regarding his
having been held guilty for the offence of
murder etc. during trial before the Court
of
III
Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Azamgarh. He knowingly did not fill up
the Column-15 (Ka) of the application
form
for
his
candidature
to
the
examination and also he did not fill up
and give the aforesaid information as
required in Column-11 (Ka) of the
attestation form which he was required to
fill before appearing in the interview of
the combined examination. He was asked
to explain the circumstances under which
he concealed the information of his
involvement in the murder case and of
having been held guilty for the same by
the trial Court. Upon receiving the
aforesaid notice, the petitioner sent his
reply (Annexure-4), but the Commission
having not been satisfied with the
explanation, cancelled his candidature for
the aforesaid combined examination of
the year 1991, vide impugned order dated
2.12.1996 (Annexure-5). Later on, when
the petitioner made a representation
(Annexure-6) before the Commission that
too did not find favour with respondent
no.1 and the same was rejected by the
impugned
order
dated
10.6.1997
(Annexure-7); hence, this petition.

3. The Commission, respondent no.1
has filed counter affidavit and disputed
the bonafide of the petitioner in the whole
affair. It is stated in the counter affidavit
that the petitioner not only concealed the
information of his involvement in the
murder
case
and
his
subsequent
conviction on having been found guilty
for those offences by the trial Court but he
also concealed his permanent residential
address of village Haraiya, Police Station
Jiyanpur,
District
Azamgarh
by
deliberately giving incorrect address of
his permanent residence being EWS-32,
Muirabad, ADA Colony, Allahabad in the
application form. The facts of petitioner's
involvement in the criminal case and his
subsequent conviction by the trial Court
had come to light only on a complaint
received in the Government. It was
further
stated
on
behalf
of
the
Commission that in the attestation form,
which is filled by the candidate before his
interview, a certificate was required to be
given. The petitioner signed the said
certificate stating that the informations,
which he has furnished in the attestation
form, were wholly correct though he had
left blank the relevant Column 11 (Ka) of
the
said
form
which required
the
petitioner to give information, if he has
been prosecuted, kept in detention, bound,
fined or has been held guilty for some
offence by the Court. By leaving the said
column
blank,
the
petitioner
had
deliberately
withheld
the
aforesaid
information of his involvement in the
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Arvind Kumar Rai V. The U.P. Public Service Commission and another
585
criminal case and later on conviction
recorded by the trial Court.

4. On receiving the complaint of the
aforesaid concealment etc. about the
petitioner's involvement in the criminal
case,
the
same
was
sent
by
the
Commission to the Government. The
State Government thereafter sent back the
complaint to the Commission (respondent
no.1) to take decision in the matter for
cancellation
of
candidature
of
the
petitioner. On scrutiny of the facts and
circumstances
and
on
obtaining
explanation
of
the
petitioner,
the
Commission was of the opinion that in
view of the entire episode of concealment
of important facts relating to petitioner's
involvement in the criminal case and his
having been found guilty for the offences
of murder etc. by the trial Court, his
candidature should be rejected and
thereafter only the impugned order was
passed
and
communicated
to
the
Government and the petitioner.

5. We have heard the learned
counsels Sri Arun Tandon for the
petitioner, Sri Pushpendra Singh for
respondent no.1 and learned Standing
Counsel for respondent no.2.

6. It has been contended on behalf of
the petitioner that he had been declared
successful after written examination and
interview etc. for the aforesaid Combined
State Services Examination of 1991, he
was also found medically fit at the
medical examination and was just by
inadvertence that the petitioner while
filling his form of the said examination,
left Column 15 (Ka) blank which required
the candidate to give information of his
involvement in a criminal case or his trial
or conviction before a criminal Court. The
learned counsel for the petitioner has
further contended that in the same manner
because
of
inadvertence
only
the
attestation form which the petitioner had
filled before his interview, Column 11
(Ka) was left blank. He gave full
justification of leaving the said column
blank in his explanation submitted to the
Commission while replying to the show
cause notice. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has further tried to stress that
the petitioner, when came to know of the
mistake of leaving the columns blank, he
volunteered entire information of his
involvement in the criminal case and
subsequent Court verdict holding him
guilty in the said case, to the Commission
vide his letter dated 21st July, 1994. It is
urged that these events show and reflect
bona fides of the petitioner.

7. In support of the aforesaid, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed
reliance
upon
the
case
of
Commissioner of Police, Delhi and
another Vs. Dhaval Singh, reported in
AIR 1999 Supreme Court, page 2326.
With the aid of the aforesaid case law, it
is further submitted that since the
petitioner has been finally acquitted in the
criminal case by the appellate Court by its
judgment dated 3.2.2003, the matter does
not remain any more serious as to justify
the passing of impugned orders of the
Commission
whereby
petitioner's
candidature to the aforesaid examination
of the Combined State Services was
cancelled.

8. In order to ascertain as to what is
what in the whole episode of the
concealment of facts about involvement
of the petitioner in criminal case and his
subsequent declaration as proved guilty in
the murder trial, we preferred to summon
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
586
the original record of the case of the
petitioner available with the Commission
which is produced by the learned counsel
for the respondent No. 1. We have
perused the whole record and found that
Column No.15 (Ka) of the application
form which was initially filled by the
petitioner himself, has been left blank.
This column requires a candidate to give
information about his ever having been
punished in any criminal case by a Court.
Likewise
Column
11 (Ka) of
the
attestation form, which is filled by the
candidate
on
2.1.1994
(before
his
interview which took place on 3.1.1994)
also requires him to give information if he
was ever arrested, prosecuted, kept in
detention, bound, fined or found guilty by
a Court or not. This column does not find
any reference given by the petitioner and
has been left blank. Likewise in this
attestation form itself, the petitioner was
required to give a certificate if there was
any circumstance, which could render him
unsuitable for any post/service in the
Government.

9. For convenience relevant extracts
of Application Form and Attestation
Forms are reproduced -
"15- (d) D;k vH;FkhZ dks fdlh QkStnkjh U;k;ky;
}kjk nf.Mr fd;k x;k g]S ;fn gkaW rks iwjk iwjk
fooj.k nsaA

([k) D;k vzH;kFkhZ dHkh la/k yksd lsok vk;ksx
vFkok fdlh jkT; yksd lsok vk;ksx }kjk okfjr
vFkok voS/k ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gS] ;fn gkW rks fooj.k
nsa A

(x) D;k vH;kFkhZ dHkh jkTkdh; lsok ls inP;qr
fd;k x;k gS] vFkok gVk;k x;k gS vFkok vfuok;Zr%
lsok fuo`Rr fd;k x;k gS] ;fn gkW rks fooj.k nsa A

11& (d) D;k vki dHkh fdlh U;k;ky; }kjk
fdlh vijk/k ds fy;s fxjQ~rkj vfHk;ksftr
(Prosecuted), fu:) (Kept in detention),
vFkok vko) (Bound), vFkZnf.Mr (Fined), nks"k
fl) fd;s x;s ;k fdlh yksd lsok vk;ksx }kjk
ijh{kk p;uksa es lfEefyr gksus ds fy;s okfjr@vugZ
fd;s x;s ;k fdlh vU; f'k{kk izkf/kdkjh@ laLFkk
n~okjk dksbZ ijh{kk nsus ds fy;s okfjr ;k ofg"d`r
(fjLVhdsV) fd;s x;s A

' ([k) D;k bl izek.khdj.k izi=k dks Hkjrs
le; vkids f[kykQ U;k;ky;] fo'ofo/kky; ;k
fdlh vU; f'k{kk izkf/kdkjh@laLFkk ds le{k dksbZ
okn fopkjk/khu gS A

;fn (d) ;k ([k) dk tokc gkW gS] rks okn
fxjQrkjh] fujks/k vFkZ n.M] nks"k&fl)] n.Mkns'k
vkfn dk iwjk fooj.k rFkk bl izi=k dks Hkjrs le;
U;k;ky;@fo'ofo|ky;@f'k{kk izkf/kdkjh vkfn ds
le{k fopkjk/khu okn dk izdkj fn;k tk; A

( d`i;k izek.khdj.k izi=k ds 'kh"kZd ij psrkouh Hkh
ns[ksa )
(izek.k Ik+=k ftl ij mEehnokj }kjk gLrk{kj fd;s
tk;saxs)

eSa izekf.kr djrk gwW fd tgkW rd esjh
tkudkjh vkSj fo'okl gS mij nh x;h lwpuk lgh
vkSj iw.kZ gS A eSa ,slh fdUgh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls voxr
ugh gWw] tks ljdkj ds ekrgr fdlh ukSdjh ds okLrs
esjh mi;qDrrk dks de dj ldrs gSa A

rkjh[k 2@1@94

Lfkku & bykgkckn
vjfoUn dqekj jk;

mEehnokj ds gLrk{kj ""

10. From the facts narrated above, it
is also clear that the criminal case against
the petitioner had been initiated, rightly or
wrongly, on the basis of First Information
Report (15.6.1986) of murder case lodged
against him. He was facing trial of the
said murder case in Sessions Trial No.286
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Arvind Kumar Rai V. The U.P. Public Service Commission and another
587
of 1986 before the III Additional Sessions
Judge, Azamgarh. This trial concluded
and final judgment of conviction against
the petitioner was rendered on 15.2.1990.
It is, therefore, more than obvious on the
record that the petitioner was involved in
the said criminal case since 1986. This
being a murder case it goes without
saying that the petitioner must have also
been detained before his enlargement on
bail in the case and also on his having
been found guilty by the trial Court at the
time of delivery of judgment. The
petitioner could have got his bail order
from the appellate Court only after some
time when his appeal would have been
entertained in this Court. Obviously,
during the intervening period, he must
have been under detention. These are such
facts, which were to be necessarily given
by the petitioner when he filled up his
form for the aforesaid Combined State
Services
Examination
(Civil),
1991.
Explanation offered by the petitioner and
claim of his bona-fide (in not mentioning
these facts of his involvement and
detention etc. in the criminal matter in his
application
form
to
the
aforesaid
combined State Services Examination and
his attestation form filled before the
interview of such examination), to our
mind are not at all acceptable.

11. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has given lot of emphasis while
pleading the petitioner's claim of bonafide in the matter, upon his voluntary
information given to respondent no.1
detailing all these facts vide his letterdated 21.7.1994.

12. We have gone through the
original letter of the petitioner, which
forms part of the Commission's record
placed before us by the learned counsel
for respondent no.1. It is an one-page
letter disclosing the facts about his false
involvement in the murder case in which
he was held guilty by the trial Court vide
judgment-dated 15.2.1990. The petitioner
could venture giving this information to
the Commission only when he had
obtained an order of this Court dated
19.7.1994 whereby the operation of the
judgment of conviction, recorded against
him, had been stayed in Criminal Appeal
No.314 of 1990. Though the appeal was
preferred way back in the year 1990, the
stay of the operation of the order of
conviction rendered by the trial Court,
was obtained only on 19.7.1994 and that
too in view of his pending consideration
of Selection made by the Commission, as
is evident from the reading of the said
Order of this Court. This itself reflects
adversely to the claim of bona fide of the
petitioner. The order of the Court was
obtained by moving an application to that
effect when the petitioner had been
declared successful at the Combined State
Civil Services Examination through a
published notification in the news paper
dated 14.2.1994. It is quite obvious that
the petitioner had become conscious after
he found himself successful in the
aforesaid examination, that his criminal
back-ground which had existed till then
would come to light and put him in
adverse situation, more specially in view
of the fact that he had concealed by
omitting relevant facts well within his
knowledge which he was required to
mention in the aforesaid relevant columns
of the examination form and also the
attestation form. This act of the petitioner,
viz. not giving information of his
involvement in the criminal matter,
instead of proving his bona fide, goes to
project his ulterior motive and crafty
approach to the whole matter. While
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
588
going through the attestation form filled
by the petitioner we have noticed that the
certificate which he gave in that form is to
the effect that he was not aware of any
fact
or
circumstance,
which
could
adversely effect his suitability for the
appointment to a post/service in the
Government. This certificate given by the
petitioner in fact renders him wholly
unsuitable for appointment to any post in
the Government, much less a gazetted
post in question. The petitioner was in full
know of his involvement in a murder case
in which he had been found guilty after
conclusion of trial before the Additional
Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. By that time,
the order dated 19.7.1994 of this Court
staying the operation of the judgment of
conviction had not been obtained by him
in his Criminal Appeal No.341 of 1994.

13. It is not at all expected of a
candidate applying for a gazetted post in
the Government to misrepresent or
conceal an important fact, which was
otherwise expected to be prejudicial
against a candidate and was required to be
disclosed in the application form and/or
attestation form. Giving false certificate
by such a candidate while appearing in
the interview to be held for such
examination, actually cannot be justified
by any set of facts or circumstances and
also cannot be interpreted showing it to be
leaning to the bona fides of the candidate.
This type of conduct of a candidate at
such juncture not only renders him wholly
unsuitable
for
selection
and
recommendation for the appointment to
the gazetted post, but it may also renders
him liable to graver consequences.

14. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has also given much stress upon
the fact that the appellate Court has
ultimately declared the petitioner innocent
and has finally rendered the judgment of
acquittal in the Criminal Appeal No.341
of 1990. Since the petitioner has been
found innocent, the whole criminal
charges stood washed out and on that
basis the petitioner's career should not be
left to ruin. He has tried to emphasis that
in the identical facts situation, the Apex
Court had propounded theory of leniency
in the case of Commissioner of Police,
Delhi (supra) and the benefit of the same
should be extended to the petitioner also.

15. We have very carefully gone
through the judgment of the Apex Court
in the aforesaid case of Commissioner of
Police, Delhi (supra). The learned counsel
for the petitioner relies on following
paragraphs 5 and 6 :

"5. That there was an omission on the
part of the respondent to give information
against the relevant column in the
Application Form about the pendency of
the criminal case is not in dispute. The
respondent,
however,
voluntarily
conveyed it, on 15.11.1995, to the
appellant that he had inadvertently failed
to mention in the appropriate column
regarding the pendency of the criminal
case against him and that his letter may
be treated as "information." Despite
receipt
of
this
communication,
the
candidature
of the
respondent was
cancelled. A perusal of the order of the
Deputy Commissioner of Police canceling
the candidature on 20.11.1995 shows that
the
information
conveyed
by
the
respondent on 15.11.1995 was not taken
note of. It was obligatory on the part of
the appellant to have considered that
application and apply its mind to the
stand of the respondent that he had made
an inadvertent mistake before passing the
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Arvind Kumar Rai V. The U.P. Public Service Commission and another
589
order. That, however, was not done. It is
not as if information was given by the
respondent regarding the inadvertent
mistake committed by him after he had
been acquitted by the trial Court it was
much before that. It is also obvious that
the information was conveyed voluntarily.
In vain, have we searched through the
order of the Deputy Commissioner of
Police and the other record for any
observation relating to the information
conveyed
by
the
respondent
on
15.11.1995 and whether that application
could not be treated as curing the defect
which had occurred in the Form. We are
not told as to how that communication
was disposed of either. Did the competent
authority ever have a look at it, before
passing the order of cancellation of
candidature ? The cancellation of the
candidature under the circumstances was
without any proper application of mind
and without taking into consideration all
relevant
material.
The
Tribunal,
therefore, rightly set it aside. We uphold
the order of the Tribunal, though for
slightly different reasons, as mentioned
above.

6.
Learned counsel for the appellants
has drawn our attention to a judgment
rendered by a Bench of this Court on
4.10.1996 in C.A. No.13231 of 1996. On
the first blush, that judgment seems to
support the case of the appellants but
there is a material difference between the
two cases. Whereas in the instant case,
the respondents had conveyed to the
appellant that an inadvertent mistake had
been committed in not giving the
information against the relevant column
in the Form much before the cancellation
of his candidature, in Sushil Kumar's
case, no such correction was made at any
stage by the respondent. That judgment is,
therefore,
clearly
distinguishable
on
facts."

16. From the perusal of fact of the
case before the Apex Court, it is evident
that the petitioner had applied for the post
of constable in a special recruitment and
while filling his form he had left to
mention his involvement in a criminal
case of rioting and Marpeet of which the
trial was going on. Later on after he got
selected, he intimated the aforesaid facts
of his involvement in the criminal case.

17. Here, the case at hand before us,
the fact situation is quite different. It is
not only that the petitioner had left to
mention the pendency of criminal case
against
him,
but
had
deliberately
concealed the fact that in the said criminal
case he had already been convicted by the
Court of Sessions Judge and in that
connection he was also under detention in
the lock up/jail for some time. In addition
to this deliberate concealment of fact, he
while going to appear for the interview
held for such merit examination, he gave
a deliberate false certificate in the
attestation
form.
This
certificate
submitted by him to the Commission was
wholly
misleading
for
which
the
petitioner cannot have any excuses. So are
not the facts of the case of Commissioner
of Police, Delhi (supra). The petitioner
thus, cannot seek any help from the
aforesaid case law, which is clearly
distinguishable on facts from this case.

18. As a matter of fact, we are
convinced
that
the
petitioner
has
absolutely no bona fide in the present
matter which could entitle him to obtain a
discretionary relief under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, against the
impugned orders whereby his candidature
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
590
to
the
Combined
State
Services
Examination (Civil) of the year 1991, had
been cancelled.

The petition is devoid of merits and
is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.
---------
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in