# Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatendra Kumar

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 430
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-04-12
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39418 of 2005
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chander-marwaha-neelima-shangla-v-state-of-haryana-or-jatendra-kumar-40467
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Service
Law-cancellation
of
appointment-false declaration given at
the time of submitting application form
regarding involvement in any criminal
case-subsequent
acquittal
will
not
2 All] Ravindra Kumar V. State of U.P. and others

 431
absolve from suppression of material
information- cancellation of appointment
held- proper.

Held- Para 6

In view of the clear dictum laid down by
the Supreme Court, the petitioner having
suppressed material information with
regard to his involvement in a criminal
case at the time of filling up the form,
the
subsequent
acquittal
of
his
involvement in the criminal case will not
absolve him from the fact that he had
suppressed material information. When a
candidate
suppresses
material
information
and/or
provides
false
information, he cannot claim any right
for an appointment on a post. This being
the position enunciated by the Supreme
Court
in
the
aforesaid
judgment,
consequently, the judgment of this Court
in Qamrul Hoda's case [supra] is no
longer a good law.
Case law discussed:
1997(2) UPLBEC-1201- distinguished
1997 SCC (L &S) 492 relied on
2003 SCC (L & S) -306

## Text

430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
candidates to apply for recruitment and on
their selection they do not acquire any
right to the post. Unless the relevant
recruitment rules so indicates, the State is
under no legal duty to fill up all or any of
the vacancies. However, it does not mean
that the State has the licence of acting in
an arbitrary manner. The decision not to
fill up the vacancies has to be taken
bonafide for appropriate reasons. And it
the vacancies or any of them are filled up,
the State is bound to respect the
comparative merit of the candidates, as
reflected at the recruitment test, and no
discrimination can be permitted. This
correct position has been consistently
followed by this Court, and we do not
find any discordant note in the decisions
in State of Haryana v. Subhash
Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v.
State of Haryana, or Jatendra Kumar
v. State of Punjab."

In All India SC & ST Employees'
Association and another v. A. Arthur
Jeen and others, [2001]6 SCC 380 the
Supreme Court held-

"Merely because the names of the
candidates were included in the panel
indicating their provisional selection, they
did not acquire any indefeasible right for
appointment even against the existing
vacancies and the State is under no legal
duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies."

Similar view was followed by the
Supreme Court in Ludhiana Central
Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Amrik Singh
and
others,
2003[10]
SCC136,
S.Renuka and others v. State of A P
and another, 2002 SCC [5] 195, Sabita
Prasad and others v. State of Bihar and
others, 1993 [1] SLR-44, State of
Andhra
Pradesh
and
others
v.
D.Dastagiri and others, 2003[3] ESC
291.

6. The judgment cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is totally
distinguishable. That was a case where
the candidates name was found in the
select list, but in the present case, the
petitioner's name was only found in the
waiting list which came to an end upon
the filling up of the entire vacancies that
were advertised. As stated earlier, once
the vacancies are filled up, the waiting list
comes to an end and cannot be utilized
any further.

7. In view of the aforesaid, I do not
find any merit in the writ petition. It is
accordingly dismissed. However, there
shall be no order as to cost.
Petition dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD: 16.05.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39418 of 2005

Ravindra Kumar

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.B. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Service
Law-cancellation
of
appointment-false declaration given at
the time of submitting application form
regarding involvement in any criminal
case-subsequent
acquittal
will
not
2 All] Ravindra Kumar V. State of U.P. and others

 431
absolve from suppression of material
information- cancellation of appointment
held- proper.

Held- Para 6

In view of the clear dictum laid down by
the Supreme Court, the petitioner having
suppressed material information with
regard to his involvement in a criminal
case at the time of filling up the form,
the
subsequent
acquittal
of
his
involvement in the criminal case will not
absolve him from the fact that he had
suppressed material information. When a
candidate
suppresses
material
information
and/or
provides
false
information, he cannot claim any right
for an appointment on a post. This being
the position enunciated by the Supreme
Court
in
the
aforesaid
judgment,
consequently, the judgment of this Court
in Qamrul Hoda's case [supra] is no
longer a good law.
Case law discussed:
1997(2) UPLBEC-1201- distinguished
1997 SCC (L &S) 492 relied on
2003 SCC (L & S) -306

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarawala, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner
and
the
learned
standing
counsel representing the respondents.

2. It transpires that the petitioner
applied for appointment on the post of
Constable and was recruited on 3.3.2004.
After his recruitment the petitioner filed
an affidavit dated 30.10.2004 intimating
the authorities that he had been acquitted
in a criminal case on 13.9.2004. Based on
the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the
respondents
issued
an
order
dated
12.4.2005 cancelling his appointment on
the post of Constable on the ground that
he had furnished false information.
Consequently, the present writ petition
has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that there was no
deliberate concealment on the part of the
petitioner in suppressing the fact about his
involvement in a criminal case. He
further submitted that the petitioner has
now been acquitted and therefore, there
was no wilful concealment on the part of
the petitioner. The fact remains that at the
time of the recruitment, when the
petitioner was required to furnish the
information he did not indicate that he
was
involved
in
a
criminal
case.
Consequently, when the authorities came
to know about his involvement in a
criminal case, the appointment of the
petitioner on the post of Constable was
cancelled for suppressing the information.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance upon the judgment of
this Court in Qamrul Hoda v. Chief
Security Commissioner, N.E. Railway,
[1997] 2 UPLBEC 1201 in which it was
held that even though, the applicant did
not place the correct facts while filling up
the declaration form, the crucial fact that
now he has been acquitted would entitle
him for being appointed on the post of
Constable.
This
court
held
that
concealment of the correct facts in the
declaration form was not sufficient for
debarring him from being selected to the
post of Constable. The petitioner has also
made reliance upon another judgment of
this Court in Satish Kumar Shukla v.
Union of India and others, [2002]1
UPLBEC 610.

In Delhi Administration through
its Chief Secretary and others v. Sushil
Kumar, 1997 SCC [L& S] 492, the
Supreme Court held-
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005

"It is seen 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 he 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 to 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. The consideration
relevant to the case is of the antecedents
of the candidate. Appointing authority,
therefore, has rightly focused this aspect
and found it not desirable to appoint him
to the service."

In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
and others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, 2003
SCC [L & S] 306 the Supreme Court held
-

"The object of requiring information
in columns 12 and 13 of the attestation
form and certification thereafter by the
candidate was to ascertain and verify that
character and antecedents to judge his
suitability to continue in service. A
candidate having suppressed material
information
and/or
giving
false
information cannot claim right to continue
in service. The employer having regard to
the nature of the employment and all
other aspects had the discretion to
terminate his services, which is made
expressly clear in para9 of the offer of
appointment. The purpose of seeking
information as per columns 12 and 13 was
not find out either the nature or gravity of
the offence or the result of a criminal case
ultimately. The information in the said
columns was sought with a view to judge
the character and antecedents of the
respondent to continue in service or not.
The High court, in our view, has failed to
see this aspect of the matter. It went
wrong in saying that the criminal case had
been subsequently withdrawn and that the
offences, in which the respondent was
alleged to have been involved, were also
not of serious nature."

5. Similar view was again expressed
by the Supreme Court in Secretary,
Department of Home Secretary, A.P.
and others Vs. B. Chinnam Naidu,
[2005] 2 SCC 746.

6. In view of the clear dictum laid
down
by
the
Supreme
Court,
the
petitioner having suppressed material
information
with
regard
to
his
involvement in a criminal case at the time
of filling up the form, the subsequent
acquittal of his involvement in the
criminal case will not absolve him from
the fact that he had suppressed material
information. When a candidate suppresses
material information and/or provides false
information, he cannot claim any right for
an appointment on a post. This being the
position enunciated by the Supreme Court
in the aforesaid judgment, consequently,
the judgment of this Court in Qamrul
Hoda's case [supra] is no longer a good
law.
2 All] Ravindra Kumar V. State of U.P. and others

 433
7. In view of the aforesaid, the writ
petition is devoid of any merit and is
dismissed summarily.
Petition Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.05.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE SABHAJEET YADAV, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43770 of 2005

Vijai Bahadur Rai

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. through Secretary, Nagar
Vikas Mantralaya, Lucknow and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.M.D. Agarwal
S.C.

A. U.P. Jal Nigam Engineers of (Public
Health
Branch
Services)
Regulation
1978-Reg-31- Age of Superannuation as
Junior
Engineer
with
Local
Self
Government Engineering Department-on
18.6.75 the services stood transferred
with
Nigam
on
the
same
terms
conditions-unless other conditions are
revised by Nigam-by efflux of time
working as Asstt. Engineer by impugned
Notice-petitioner made to retire at the
age of 58 yrs.-under regulation 31regulation and government orders meant
for
government
employees-made
applicable-hence entitled to continue till
attains the age of 60 yrs.

Held: Para 8

Thus, the Fundamental Rule 56-A of U.P.
Financial Hand Book applicable to the
Government servant in respect of age of
superannuation as amended from time
to time would automatically apply to the
employees of the Nigam including the
petitioner who is covered by Regulations
1978. Thus in view of the aforesaid legal
position, we are prima facie of the
opinion that the aforesaid amended
provisions
of
fundamental
rules
providing
for
age
of
retirement/superannuation of 60 years
applicable to the Government employee
are also applicable to the petitioner and
the petitioner would be entitled to
continue in service till he attains his age
of superannuation i.e. 60 years instead
of 58 years.

B. Constitution of India Article 226Practice of Procedure-grant of Interim
Order-prior
stage
of
counter
and
rejoinder
affidavit-in
cases
of
termination,
renewal,
dismissal,
suspension,
reduction
in
rank,
and
compulsory retirement interim relief in
the nature of final relief should not be
granted-but in case superannuationholding of office enjoying the facilitiesattached
to
the
office-channel
of
promotion on higher post can not be
compensated held-distinction should be
drawn between the cases in which
conduct of employer is subject matter of
dispute and the controversy rest on
operation of law-hence interim order
granted.

Held: Para 11

Although this Court is conscious about
the scope of interim order to be passed
in the writ petition at admission stage,
prior
to
exchange
of
counter
and
rejoinder affidavits between the parties.
Normally where the fact can be disputed
by the counter affidavit to be filed in the
writ petition, the interim relief in the
nature of final and main relief is not
granted in such situation. Not only this
but this Court is also slow in granting
any interim order of such a nature in
cases of termination, removal, dismissal,
suspension,
reduction
in
rank
and
compulsory retirement of employee etc.