Madan Lal Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
(a) precedent - decision of full bench is binding on single judge--reference made by single judge to larger bench for reconsideration of decision of full bench is incompetent.;(b) rajasthan police subordinate service rules, 1989 - rules 13 and 15--appointment to the post of constable--concealment of material facts by the incumbent as regarding pendency of criminal cases against him in the application form as also in character verification form--hence incumbent-petitioner is disentitled for appointment even though he was placed in the select list.;writ petition dismissed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - (2). it is the case of the petitioner that rule 13 of the rajasthan police subordinate service rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to 'the rules of 1989') provides that persons getting appointments in the service should not be of a bad character or convicted by a competent court of law in the criminal case involved moral turpitude. - what is the scope of note (1) of rule 13 of the rajasthan police subordinate service rules 1989? whether pendency of a criminal case of any nature, itself involve the refusal of a certificate of good character? r/2, which is in connection whether the applicant was an accused of a criminal case or sent to jail, the petitioner has answered 'nahi' (no), (17). it is thus, clearly seen that the petitioner has concealed the material facts that two cases were pending/registered against him. the supreme court had observed that since the respondent voluntarily conveyed to the commissioner of police on 15.11.1995 that he had inadvertently failed to mention in the appropriate column regarding the case pending against him arid his letter should be treated as an information, it was obligatory on the part of the commissioner of police to have considered the application and apply his mind to the stand of the respondent that he made an inadvertent mistake before passing an order. we have already held in the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner has suppressed the material and relevant facts at the time of filling of his application form and that, therefore, he is not entitled for any appointment to the post in question in view of suppression of material facts and failure to make true discloser of all relevant facts.orderlakshmanan, cj.1. this writ petition was filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of constable (r.a.c.) along with all consequential benefits. the case of the petitioner is that pursuant to an advertisement published in the newspaper for filling up certain posts of constables, the petitioner applied for the said post. a permission letter was issued to him for appearing in the written examination. the petitioner was declared successful and the result of the written examination was published in the daily rajasthan patrika in its udaipur edition dated 15.9.1996. the petitioner, thereupon appeared in the physical efficiency test and viva-voce/interview on 2.11.1996 before the fourth respondents. a list of 17 provisionally selected candidates including the petitioner was published by the fourth respondents on 2.11.1996 on the notice board that the name of the petitioner was shown at no. 1 in the said selected list. the commandant of xiith bn. (r.a.c.) sent a letter to the police station kapasan for character verification of the petitioner. according to the petitioner, a compromise took place between the parties in the aforesaid criminal cases and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges in those cases vide order dated 19.11.1996 (annexures 4 to g). it is the case of the petitioner that on 19.11.1996 itself, the petitioner submitted an application to the station house officer, police station kapasan along with certified copies of the order dated 19.11.1996 passed in the criminal cases and requested for his character verification. the police station sent a report to the superintendent of police chittorgarh on i9.11.1996 mentioning therein the three cases are pending against the petitioner vide fir no. 39-1/1995, 331/1996 and 321/1996 in the court of civil judge (sr. division) and additional chief judicial magistrate, kapasan u/s. 447 and 427 ipc. in his turn, the superintendent of police, chittorgarh vide his letter dated 22.11.1996 informed the fourth respondent regarding pendency of the above cases against the petitioner. since, the petitioner did not receive any appointment letter for the post of constable inpursuance of his selection dated 2.11.1996, the petitioner contacted the respondents on various occasions and (hereupon he sent a notice of demand for justice (annex. 8) to the respondents nos. 2 to 4. along with the writ petition, the petitioner filed some documents vide annex. 1 to 8. inspite of the notice of demand for justice, the respondents did not pay any head to the notice, therefore, the petitioner has filed the above writ petilion with a prayer to direct the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner on the post of constable (rac) along with other consequential benefits.(2). it is the case of the petitioner that rule 13 of the rajasthan police subordinate service rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to 'the rules of 1989') provides that persons getting appointments in the service should not be of a bad character or convicted by a competent court of law in the criminal case involved moral turpitude. according to the petitioner, pendency of the criminal cases against him does not involve moral turpitude and should not be a ground to deny appointment.(3). a reply was filed by the respondents. according to the respondents, the petitioner while submitting his application form has concealed the fact that certain criminal cases were pending against him in the police station kapasan vide fir nos. 394/1995,321/1996 and 331/1996 and had these facts been put in the application form, the respondents would not have called the petitioner for purpose of appearing in the written examination. it is also submitted in the reply that the conduct of the petitioner in also in contravention to rule 15 of the rules of 1989, which runs as under:-'15. employment of irregular or improper means:- a candidate who is or has been declared by the recruitment board/commission or the appointing authority guilty of impersonation or of submitting fabricated documents, which have been tempered with or suppressing material information or of using or attempting to use unfair means in the examination or interview or otherwise resorting to any other irregular or improper means for obtaining admission to the examination or interview may, in addition to rendering himself liable to criminal prosecution be debarred either permanent or for a specified period:- (a) by the recruitment board/commission or the appointing authority for admission to any examination or appearance at any interview to be held under the provisions of these rules; and (b) by government from employment under the government.'(4). according to the respondents, the petitioner has concealed certain material facts from the respondents in as much as in the application form submitted by him in column no. 17, which reads thus:-^^izkfkhz ;fn vkijkf/kd izdaj.k esa lecu/k jgkgks] dk fooj.k & ughad d;k izkfkh fdlh vkijkf/kd eqdnesa esafyir gs ;k jgk gs & ugha^^(5). as per the respondents, even in the application form this condition has been mentioned in clear terms that if the informations submitted by the applicant arc found wrong then in addition to cancel the application form, his service even if after selection in the governmenl service will be terminated and he is liable to face the legal action. the exact language which is in hindi reads thus:-^^;fn izkfkhz }kjk nh xbz lqpuk esa xyrh ikbztk;sxh rks mldk vkosnu fujlr djus ds vykok lsok ls p;u ds ckn hkh fuldklu rfkkdkuwuh dk;zokbz vey esa ykbz tk;sxha**(6). under these circumstances, the respondents were of the opinion that the petitioner was not entitled to get the appointment letter and in view of the suppression of material facts, the writ petition is liable to be rejected.(7). as already noticed, the commandant xiith bn. r.a.c. sent a letter to the police station, kapasan for character verification of the petitioner and pursuant thereof, they received communication dated 22.11.1996 (annex. r/2) from the superintendent of police, chittorgarh, wherein it was mentioned that:-^^fo'k; % jh enu yky firk hks:yky tkv fu-xkfn;kuk ds pfj= lr;kiu dh tkap ds laca/k esaaizlax % vkids i= ekad u&52@vkj-,- lh- @ 324@qkslz@96@3623 fnukad 5-11-96ds e esaaegksn;]mijksdr fo'k; esa fuosnu gs fd mdr vkosndds pfj= lr;kiu dh tkap lacaf/kr fkkukf/kdkjh fkkuk&diklu; ls djkbz xbz rksvkosnd ds fo: fkkuk diklu ij iz- la- 394@95 /kkjk447&427 rk- fg- ntz gksdj ckn vuqla/kku pkyku u:k;ky; esa is'k fd;k tkukik;k x;kau;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 19-11-96 dks vkilhjkthukesa ds vk/kkj ij mdr vkosnd dks nksuksa izdj.kksa esa /kkjk 447&427vkbz-ih-lh- ds vkjksiksa ls nks'keqdr fd;k x;k gsa u;k;ky; fu.kz; dh qksvksizfr layxu gsalayxu fdrk&5g-@& ftyk iqfyl v/kh{kd]fprrkksm+x

Judgment:
ORDER

Lakshmanan, CJ.

1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Constable (R.A.C.) along with all consequential benefits. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to an advertisement published in the newspaper for filling up certain posts of Constables, the petitioner applied for the said post. A permission letter was issued to him for appearing in the written examination. The petitioner was declared successful and the result of the written examination was published in the daily Rajasthan Patrika in its Udaipur edition dated 15.9.1996. The petitioner, thereupon appeared in the Physical Efficiency Test and Viva-voce/interview on 2.11.1996 before the fourth respondents. A list of 17 provisionally selected candidates including the petitioner was published by the fourth respondents on 2.11.1996 on the notice board that the name of the petitioner was shown at No. 1 in the said selected list. The Commandant of XIIth Bn. (R.A.C.) sent a letter to the police station Kapasan for character verification of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, a compromise took place between the parties in the aforesaid criminal cases and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges in those cases vide order dated 19.11.1996 (Annexures 4 to G). It is the case of the petitioner that on 19.11.1996 itself, the petitioner submitted an application to the Station House Officer, Police Station Kapasan along with certified copies of the order dated 19.11.1996 passed in the criminal cases and requested for his character verification. The police station sent a report to the Superintendent of Police Chittorgarh on i9.11.1996 mentioning therein the three cases are pending against the petitioner vide FIR No. 39-1/1995, 331/1996 and 321/1996 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan u/S. 447 and 427 IPC. In his turn, the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh vide his letter dated 22.11.1996 informed the fourth respondent regarding pendency of the above cases against the petitioner. Since, the petitioner did not receive any appointment letter for the post of Constable inpursuance of his selection dated 2.11.1996, the petitioner contacted the respondents on various occasions and (hereupon he sent a notice of demand for justice (Annex. 8) to the respondents Nos. 2 to 4. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner filed some documents vide Annex. 1 to 8. Inspite of the notice of demand for justice, the respondents did not pay any head to the notice, therefore, the petitioner has filed the above writ petilion with a prayer to direct the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner on the post of Constable (RAC) along with other consequential benefits.

(2). It is the case of the petitioner that Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to 'the Rules of 1989') provides that persons getting appointments in the service should not be of a bad character or convicted by a competent court of law in the criminal case involved moral turpitude. According to the petitioner, pendency of the criminal cases against him does not involve moral turpitude and should not be a ground to deny appointment.

(3). A reply was filed by the respondents. According to the respondents, the petitioner while submitting his application form has concealed the fact that certain criminal cases were pending against him in the Police Station Kapasan vide FIR Nos. 394/1995,321/1996 and 331/1996 and had these facts been put in the application form, the respondents would not have called the petitioner for purpose of appearing in the written examination. It is also submitted in the reply that the conduct of the petitioner in also in contravention to Rule 15 of the Rules of 1989, which runs as under:-

'15. Employment of Irregular or Improper Means:-

A candidate who is or has been declared by the Recruitment Board/Commission or the Appointing Authority guilty of impersonation or of submitting fabricated documents, which have been tempered with or suppressing material information or of using or attempting to use unfair means in the examination or interview or otherwise resorting to any other irregular or improper means for obtaining admission to the examination or interview may, in addition to rendering himself liable to criminal prosecution be debarred either permanent or for a specified period:-

(a) by the Recruitment Board/Commission or the Appointing Authority for admission to any examination or appearance at any interview to be held under the provisions of these Rules; and

(b) by Government from employment under the Government.'

(4). According to the respondents, the petitioner has concealed certain material facts from the respondents in as much as in the application form submitted by him in Column No. 17, which reads thus:-

^^izkFkhZ ;fn vkijkf/kd izdaj.k esa lEcU/k jgkgks] dk fooj.k & ugha

d D;k izkFkh fdlh vkijkf/kd eqdnesa esafyIr gS ;k jgk gS & ugha^^

(5). As per the respondents, even in the application form this condition has been mentioned in clear terms that if the informations submitted by the applicant arc found wrong then in addition to cancel the application form, his service even if after selection in the governmenl service will be terminated and he is liable to face the legal action. The exact language which is in Hindi reads thus:-

^^;fn izkFkhZ }kjk nh xbZ lqpuk esa xyrh ikbZtk;sxh rks mldk vkosnu fujLr djus ds vykok lsok ls p;u ds ckn Hkh fuLdklu rFkkdkuwuh dk;ZokbZ vey esa ykbZ tk;sxhA**

(6). Under these circumstances, the respondents were of the opinion that the petitioner was not entitled to get the appointment letter and in view of the suppression of material facts, the writ petition is liable to be rejected.

(7). As already noticed, the Commandant XIIth Bn. R.A.C. sent a letter to the Police Station, Kapasan for character verification of the petitioner and pursuant thereof, they received communication dated 22.11.1996 (Annex. R/2) from the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh, wherein it was mentioned that:-

^^fo'k; % Jh enu yky firk Hks:yky tkV fu-xkfn;kuk ds pfj= lR;kiu dh tkap ds laca/k esaA

izlax % vkids i= ekad u&52@vkj-,- lh- @ 324@QkslZ@96@3623 fnukad 5-11-96ds e esaA

egksn;]

mijksDr fo'k; esa fuosnu gS fd mDr vkosndds pfj= lR;kiu dh tkap lacaf/kr Fkkukf/kdkjh Fkkuk&diklu; ls djkbZ xbZ rksvkosnd ds fo: Fkkuk diklu ij iz- la- 394@95 /kkjk447&427 rk- fg- ntZ gksdj ckn vuqla/kku pkyku U:k;ky; esa is'k fd;k tkukik;k x;kA

U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 19-11-96 dks vkilhjkthukesa ds vk/kkj ij mDr vkosnd dks nksuksa izdj.kksa esa /kkjk 447&427vkbZ-ih-lh- ds vkjksiksa ls nks'keqDr fd;k x;k gSA U;k;ky; fu.kZ; dh QksVksizfr layXu gSA

layXu fdrk&5

g-@&

ftyk iqfyl v/kh{kd]

fpRRkkSM+x<+ jkt-

(8). In so far as it relates to the compromise between the parties and the orders placed by the petitioner on record is concerned, the respondents have submitted that the same is hardly of any consequence or relates because once the petitioner has concealed the material facts in his application form at the time of his initial entry inservice that:-

^^nks QkStnkjh vijk/kks esa pkyku gqvk gS tksfopkjk/khu U:k;ky; gSA**

(9). This writ petition was earlier heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiv Kumar Sharma. The learned Single Judge after hearing arguments of the parties reserved the judgment. The learned Single Judge after referring to the observations made by the Full Bench of this Court (Hon'ble the then Chief Justice Shiv Raj V. Patil and Hon'ble Mr, Justice Bhagwati Prasad and separate concurring note written by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amresh Kumar Singh) in the case of Dharampal Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others (1), and the observations made by a Division Benches in the cases of State of Rajasthan vs. Khalid (2), decided on May 18, 1998); State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Singh (3) decided on July 2,1998); and observations made by the learned Single Judges in Brijendra Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan (4) and in the case of Suresh Chand Saini vs. State of Rajasthan (5) decided on August 28, 1998) and few other judgments was of the opinion that the Full Bench decision in the case of Dharampal Singh (supra) requires reconsideration by a Larger Bench and the Learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 13.6.2000 referred the following two questions to a Larger Bench in view of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Dharampal Singh (Supra) and in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police vs. Dhaval Singh (6), Suresh Chand Saini (supra) and Matadeen Garg:-

'What is the scope of Note (1) of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules 1989? Whether pendency of a criminal case of any nature, itself involve the refusal of a certificate of good character?

(ii) Whether suppression of fact in the application form about involvement in a criminal case, if not intentional and only by an inadvertence, disentitles a candidate from being appointed in service?

(10). As directed by the learned Single Judge, the matter was placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a Larger Bench. On 20th of January, 2001; Hon'ble the Chief Justice passed the following order:-

'Place all the connected matters before CJ's Bench to adjudge the correctness of the reference order. Post it on Tuesday in the admission category'

(11). We have heard the arguments on both the sides on the questions of reference to be made to a Larger Bench and also on merits. We have perused the judgment rendered by the Full Bench in the case of Dharampal Singh (Supra) and also heard arguments of the counsel appearing on either side.

(12). In our opinion, the reference made by the learned Single Judge to a Larger Bench is not competent. !n our opinion that the judgment delivered by the Full Bench of this Court does not require any reconsideration on a reference being made by a Single Judge Bench of this Court who is bound by the judgment of the Larger Bench of three Hon'ble Judges. In an identical case, Coir Board Ernakulam Kerala State and Another vs. Indira Devai P.S. and Others (7). two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court expressed doubt about the correctness of the judgment of Seven Judges Bench in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa (8). When it was brought to the notice of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of india, the matter was placed before three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court. It is seen from the record of proceedings that the direction made by the learned Two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court to refer the matter to a Larger Bench was not countenanced and the matter was again directed to be listed before the appropriate Bench for an order. The Order of the Supreme Court reads thus:-

' 1. We have considered the order made in Civil Appeals Nos. 1720-21 of 1990. The judgment in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa was delivered almost two decades ago and the law has since been amended pursuant to that judgment though the date of enforcement of the amendment has not been notified.

2. The judgment delivered by seven learned Judges of this Court in Bangalore Water Supply case does not, in our opinion, require any reconsideration on a reference being made by a two- Judges Bench of this Court, which is bound by the judgment of the larger Bench.'

3. The appeal shall, therefore, be listed before the appropriate Bench for further proceedings.'

(13). We have perused the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Dharampal Singh's case (supra) and we are bound by the opinion offered by the Full Bench. In our opinion, it does not require any reconsideration on a reference being made by a learned Single Judge of this Court who is bound by the judgment of the Ful Bench as already held by the Supreme Court in Coir Board's Case (supra). The reference can be made to a larger Bench for examining the correctness of the Judgment only by a Bench consisting of the same number of Judges who have delivered the judgment, the correctness of which is doubted. Thus, reference by the learned Single Judge regarding correctness of the judgment of the Full Bench itself is doubtful. Therefore, we directed the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents to address their arguments on the merits of their cases.

(14). Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made two fold submissions. Referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police Delhi and Another vs. Dhaval Singh (supra), Shri Sharmahas contended Dial the said decision was nol noticed by the Full Bench and, therefore, the decision of the Full Bench is to be considered per in curim. The another submission made by Shri Sharma is that it was obligatory on the part of the respondents specially respondent No. 4 to have informed the petitioner, a formal letter of rejection of his selection.

(15). On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents relying upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Dharma Pal Singh and Others (supra) have contended that the petitioner has concealed material facts not only in the relevant Column No. 17 of the application form but also in column No. 8 of Character Verification Roll, (a photostat copy of which is attached to Annex.' R/2) filled in and submitted by him at the time of character verification and thus, in view of Rules 13 and 15 of the Rules of 1989 the omission by the petitioner to furnish information in column No. 17 must be treated as index to his character and not excusable in absence of extenuating circumstances. This amounts to suppression of material fact without justification, which disentitles him from being appointed and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

(16). We have perused the documents submitted by the respondents along with their reply (Annex. R/1 and R/2). Annex. R/1 is the copy of the application filled in and submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No. 4. In Column No. 17 regarding the fact whether applicant had been involved in a criminal case, the petitioner mentioned 'Nahi' (No.) In clause (ka) of Column No. 17 regarding the fact whether the applicant has been/is involved in a criminal case, the answer of the petitioner is 'Nahi' (No). Again in answer to clause (kha) of Column No. 17, which is whether the applicant was arrested in any case, the petitioner has mentioned 'Nahi' (No). In view of the report of the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kapasan and the Superintendent of Police. Chittorgarh, Annex. R/2, the answers given by the petitioner in Annex. R/1 are absolutely false. Nol only this, in Column No. 8 of the Verification Roll, attached to Annex. R/2, which is in connection whether the applicant was an accused of a criminal case or sent to jail, the petitioner has answered 'Nahi' (No),

(17). It is thus, clearly seen that the petitioner has concealed the material facts that two cases were pending/registered against him. Under such circumstances, the respondents are in our opinion, have full liberty not to appoint him in the services of the department. This apart no legal right has come to be vested for giving appointment to the post of Constable because admittedly, the petitioner has concealed the material facts from the appointing authority while submitting his application form and also while submitting his Verification Roll. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(18). In the case of Commissioner of Police Delhi (supra), the respondent while seeking post of a Constable during the special recruitment drive was alleged to have concealed from mentioning in the application form, that there is a criminal case pending against him. He had put a cross-mark in the relevant column. He was provisionally selected after passing the written test, physical endurance test and was interviewed pending verification of his character. However, before any order of appointment could be issued in his favour, he realising the mistake, wrote a teller to the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 15.11.1995 that he may be excused for non-furnishing the correct information and that the application dated 15.11.1995 be treated as an information from his side. In the meanwhile, the Commissioner of Police has sought Police verification and on such verification came to know that a case vide FIR No. I of 1993 was registered againsl him. On this ground, the Commissioner of Police had cancelled the candidature of the respondent. In the meanwhile, the respondent was acquitted in the criminal case by the trial court vide judgment dated 8.12.1995 and on being so acquitted, he filed a representation before the Commissioner of Police for reconsideration of his case which was also rejected. The responden thereupon filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed by the Tribunal and the orders of cancellation of candidature and the rejection of the representation were set aside and the Tribunal directed the appellants to consider offering appointment to the respondent. Aggrived by the Order of the Tribunal, the Commissioner of Police filed a SLP before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had observed that since the respondent voluntarily conveyed to the Commissioner of Police on 15.11.1995 that he had inadvertently failed to mention in the appropriate column regarding the case pending against him arid his letter should be treated as an information, it was obligatory on the part of the Commissioner of Police to have considered the application and apply his mind to the stand of the respondent that he made an inadvertent mistake before passing an order. Since the information was conveyed voluntarily, the competent authority ought not to have cancelled the candidature. Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court has observed that cancellation of candidature under the circumstances was not proper application of mind and without taking into consideration all relevant materials. The Supreme Court upheld the order of the Tribunal though for slightly different reasons.

(19). As noted above, in the case on hand, the facts are different. The applications were invited vide advertisement dated 6.8.1996 (Annex. 1), which was published in the daily Rajasthan Patrika dated 8.8.1996. The written examination was held on 8.9.1996 and the result of the written examination was declared on 15.9.1996 and the petitioner was declared as successful. The Physical Efficiency Test and Viva-voce/ln-terview was held on 2.11.1996 and the petitioner appeared in the said test and viva-voce/interview. On 2.11.1996 itself the result was declared provisionally selecting 17 candidates including the petitioner. On 5.11.1996, the Commandant XIIth Bn. R.A.C. Udaipur sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh for character verification of the petitioner. On 19.11.1996, Police Station, Kapasan sent an information to the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh that three cases are pending against the petitioner. Compromise took place in the criminal cases on 19.11.1996 and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges. On the same day i.e. on 19.11.1996, the petitioner submitted an application to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kapasan along with certified copies of the orders dated 19.11.1996 passed in the criminal cases and requested for his correct character verification. On 22.11.1996, the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh has sent the report of character verification of the petitioner to the fourth respondent (Annex. B/2). It is also important to mention here that in the case on hand, the appointing authority is the Commandant XIIth Bn. RAC, Udaipur respondent No. 4 and from the record it can also be seen that the petitioner did not send any letter or representation to him regarding the fact that he did not submit the corrccl information regarding pendency of criminal cases. He only informed the Station House Officer of Police Station, Kapasan vide Annex. 7 about his involvement in criminal cases only after the compromise entered into between the parties on 19.11.1996 and applied for his correct character verification. In the case of Commissioner of Police (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent thereon before any order of appointment could be issued in his favour realising his mistake wrote a letter to the Dy. Commissioner of Police on 15.11.1995 in which he had stated that he had inadvertently not mentioned regarding the criminal case pending against him in the appropriate column and that the same had been done due to lack of knowledge and he may be excused for the lapse on his part and that his application be treated as an information from his side. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by the Commissioner on the ground that the Commissioner of Police did not consider the genuineness of the claim and the voluntary representation made and conveyed on 15.11.1995 to him and has observed that cancellation of candidature under the circumstances was without proper application of mind and without taking into consideration all relevant material.

(20). In our opinion, the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Police (supra) cited and very heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has noapplication in the facts and circumstances of the present case and is distinguishable on facts and on law.

(21). The Full Bench in the case of Dhararnpal Singh & Ors. (supra) has categorically held that wilful suppression of fact in form of application would amount to moral lurpilude and entitled the employer to deny employment to candidate on that ground. Ultimate acquittal of a candidate prosecuted on criminal charge does not condone or wash out consequences of suppression of that fact and that suppression of such material fact by itself disentitles candidate from being appointed. The Full Bench has also held (hat under Rule 15 of the Rules of 1989, the act of suppression of material (act, by itself, amounts to moral turpitude within the meaning of the Rules of 1989. The I lon'ble Judges of the Full Bench also considered the various case law referred to them and ultimately on consideration of the entire material placed before them and the relevant Service Rules and rase law cited before them, answered the questions referred to them for determination.

(22). We have already noticed the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition which is to direct the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post in question. In our view, such a prayer cannot be countenanced. The prayer can be only for a direction to be issued to the respondents to consider his case for appointment for the post in question in the facts and circumstances of the case. We have already held in the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner has suppressed the material and relevant facts at the time of filling of his application form and that, therefore, he is not entitled for any appointment to the post in question in view of suppression of material facts and failure to make true discloser of all relevant facts. He has concealed some thing which is very important and relevant from the point of view of the department and, therefore, in our opinion, the department is right in denying appointment to the petitioner. Therefore, there is no need to issue direction to the respondents herein the pass a formal order of rejection which is in our opinion, would amount to any empty formality.

(23). In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench in the case of Dharampal and Ors. (supra), we are of the opinion lhat the writ petition has no merit and, therefore, is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, we do so. No. costs.