Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Inam Ali vs Gnctd on 21 January, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1325/2023
Reserved on: 06.12.2024
Pronounced on: 21.01.2025
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)
Inam Ali,
Sh. Amir Ahmed,
183, Vani Vihar, Jain Plot,
Dehradun-248001 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Rahul Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through the Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate,
Delhi-110002
2. The Secretary,
Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, 5 Alipore Road,
Delhi-110054
3. Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Secretary,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110069 - Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. RV Sinha, Mr. AS Singh, Mr.Amit
Sinha, Ms. Nidhi Singh and Ms. Shriya Sharma)
2
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. B.Anand, Member (A):
The applicant, an initial recruitee of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) in the year 1998, was working as Principle in various Government schools under the Directorate of Tribal Development in the Government of Uttrakhand. The applicant had responded to an advertisement issued in January, 2010, by respondent no.3 - Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), for filling up 20 posts (subsequently reduced to 19 posts) of Education Officer/Assistant Director of Education [now re- designated as Deputy Director of Education (DDE)], in the respondent no.2 - Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The applicant was possessing the educational qualifications and experience and based on that, he was issued a call letter by the respondents, directing him to appear for recruitment test to be held on 29.04.2012 for short-listing the candidates to be called for interview. The applicant was one of the 82 candidates who were provisionally shortlisted for interview and he had accordingly appeared for the interview before the Special Interview Board which was held from 16.06.2014 to 20.06.20214 and finally found his name figuring in the 3 select list of successful candidates for 19 posts published on 24.07.2019.
2. Accordingly, respondent no.3 (UPSC) had recommended the applicant's name for appointment to the post of DDE to the requisitioning department - Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi/respondent no.2. While making such recommendations, the UPSC vide their letter dated 13.03.2019, had also drawn attention of the requisitioning department - respondent no.2 that an FIR is found registered against the applicant at the time of his interview with UPSC and this aspect may be looked into at depth by verification of the documents submitted by the applicant to the respondent no.2. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 called the applicant to appear in person for documents verifications on or before 07.05.2019 along with original copies of education qualification, experience certificate, date of birth proof, caste certificate etc.. When respondent no.2 started verifying details of the FIR in the name of applicant - Shri Inam Ali, it was intimated by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Uttarakhand vide their letter dated 28.08.2019 that the applicant had been convicted under Section 7 & 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to 4 one year rigorous imprisonment along with a penalty of Rs.5000 under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and 3 ½ years of rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act vide order dated 03.05.2013 by the Learned Additional District & Session Courts/Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Nainital who had found him guilty of corruption charges of taking bribe of Rs.25,000/- when he was caught red-handed in a vigilance raid on 24.03.2010.
3. The respondents learnt that the applicant had filed an appeal against the order of the Trial Court Anti Corruption, Nanital and the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand, which heard the matter, vide order dated 30.10.2013, had ordered that "sentence is suspended till the next date of listing and no coercive steps shall be taken". The said appeal is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court as the applicant in the course of his appeal before the High Court had questioned the appointment of Special Judge of the Anti-corruption Trial as illegal as no notification regarding his appointment was published in the official gazettee.
4. Meanwhile, the applicant was aggrieved by the delay in issuance of "offer of appointment to the post of DDE for 5 which he was recommended by UPSC on 13.03.2019 but no offer of appointment had been issued by the respondent no.2 - Direction of Education till date. Aggrieved by this delay in obtaining the offer of appointment, the applicant had filed OA No. 3687/2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.12.2022 directing the respondent nos.1 and 2 to pass a reasoned and speaking order in response to the fresh representation of the applicant to be submitted to the respondents within one week from the date of order, within a period of 4 weeks, from the date of receipt of the said fresh representation.
5. Based on the aforesaid judgment dated 20.12.2022 of the Tribunal, the applicant had submitted an application to the Secretary (Education) dated 23.12.2022 with a prayer to consider and issue an appointment letter to him for the post of DDE as per the recommended list dated 13.03.2019 published by UPSC and grant all consequential benefits, seniority, pay fixation, arrears accuring thereof to him. The respondent No.2 considered the representation of the applicant and ordered that the applicant's candidature for the said post may be cancelled vide their letter dated 01.03.2023. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the 6 applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) Allow the present OA in favour of the applicant and quash and set aside the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the respondents thereby rejecting the representation preferred by the applicant.
(b) Allow the present OA in favour of the applicant with a direction to the respondents to issue appointment letter to the applicant on the post of Education Officer/Asst. Director Education [now re-designated as Deputy Director of Education (DDE)] in accordance with/as per the result dated 13.03.2019 published by the Respondent no.3/UPSC for appointment of 18 selected candidates;
(c) Allow the present OA in favour of the Applicant with a direction to the Respondents to direct the Respondents to grant all consequential benefits and the seniority, pay fixation arrears accruing thereof, etc to the applicant.
(d) Pass any such orders as the Court may deem fit in the light of above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case."
6. Learned counsel for the applicant also states that the applicant, while filling up the attestation form of the UPSC, has given answers to 12(a) to 12(l) by striking either 'yes' or 'no'. He further states that while filling up the attestation form for recruitment to the post of DDE, the applicant had specifically answered 'Yes' to the Q.No.12(l). The said Q.No.112(l) states that "If the answer to any of the above mentioned question is 'Yes' give full particulars of the 7 case/arrest/detention/find/conviction/sentence/punishm ent etc. and/or the name of the case pending the Court/University/Educational Authority etc. at the time of filling up this form. The applicant in response had written "Note - FALSE FIR/WITNESS DUE TO ENEMITY & ILLEGAL CONVICTIO BY ILLEGAL JUDGE, WHICH IS STAYED BY HON. HIGH COURT U.K. (Enclosed)". Therefore, the applicant contends that there is no suppression of any material facts by the applicant. He also states that the applicant had disclosed all the material facts, including fact of his conviction by the criminal court and later suspension of the sentence of the Hon'ble Uttrakhand High Court in criminal appeal preferred by the applicant vide order dated 30.10.2013. Learned counsel for the applicant states that it is wrong on the part of the respondents to conclude that the applicant is guilty of suppressing the information of the criminal case as even a bare perusal of the attestation form filled by the applicant can show that the applicant has truthfully answered 'Yes' to other queries related to criminal case and marked cross on 'No'.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the action of the respondents in withholding the 8 appointment of the applicant without any sufficient reason is clearly illegal and arbitrary in nature and in violation of the settled principles of law holding that pendency of a criminal case cannot be made a ground to deny public employment. In this context, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India, (2010)14 SCC 103 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the purpose of seeking the information with respect to antecedents. It is observed and held that the purpose of seeking the information with respect to antecedents is to ascertain the character antecedents of the candidate so as to assess his suitability for post. It was further observed that when an employee or a prospective employee declares in a verification form, answers to the queries relating to character and antecedents, the verification thereof can lead to any of the following consequences. (b) On the other hand, if the employer finds that the criminal case disclosed by the declarant related to offences which were technical, or of a nature that would not affect the declarant's fitness for employment or where the declarant had been 9 honourably acquitted and exonerated, the employer may ignore the fact that the declarant had been prosecuted in a criminal case and proceed to appoint him or continue him in employment. Hence, under such circumstances and in the event of applicant having truthfully declared his criminal antecedent in Antecedent Form along with relevant documents and also in view of the fact that the conviction of the applicant has already been suspended, there remains no reason for the respondents to have not issued the appointment letter to the applicant.
8. The above contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant are vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents who states that in the attestation form filled at the time of interview (held on 29.04.2014) for the post of EO/ADE by U.P.S.C., the applicant submitted false information by declaring at 12(a) that he had never been arrested and at 12(b) that he had never been prosecuted and at 12(f) that he had never been convicted by a court of Law for any offence. The learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to the WARNING mentioned at the first page of the Attestation Form which stipulates that 10 furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government'.
9. Learned counsel for respondents states that Clause 8 of the Advertisement issued by UPSC in January, 2010 clearly states as follows:-
"8. ACTION AGAISNT CANDIDATES FOUND GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT:
Candidates are warned that they should not furnish any particulars it at are false or suppress any material information in filling up the application form. Candidates are also warned that they should be in no case correct or alter or otherwise tamper with any entry in a document or its attested/certified copy submitted by them nor should they submit a tampered/fabricated document. If there is any inaccuracy or any discrepancy between two or more such documents or their attested/certified, copies, an explanation regarding this discrepancy should be submitted.
A candidate who is or has been declared by the Commission to be guilty of:
(i) obtaining support of his/her candidature by any means or
(ii) impersonating, or
(iii) procuring impersonation by any person,
(iv) submitting fabricated documents or documents which have been tampered with, or
(v) making statements which are incorrect or false or suppressing material information, 11 or
(vi) resorting to any other irregular or improper means in connection with his/her candidature for the selection, or
(vii) using unfair means during the last, or
(viii) writing irrelevant matter including absence ...or ...matter, in the script(s), or
(ix) ....in any other manner in ..... or
(x) Harassing or ....bodily ....to the staff employed by the Commission for the conduct their least, or
(xi) Bringing mobile phone/communication ...in the examination Hall/Interview room.
(xii) Attempting to commit or, as the case may be abetting the Commission of all or any of the acts specified in the foregoing clauses may, in addition to rendering himself/herself liable to criminal persecution, be liable:
(a) to be disqualified by the Commission form selection for which he/she is a candidate, and/or
(b) to be debarred either permanently or for a specified period:-
(i) By the Commission from any examination or selection hold by them.
(ii) By the Central Government form any employment under them, any
(c) If he/she is already in service under Government to disciplinary action under the appropriate rules.
10. The respondents' counsel submits that the Applicant's case falls under sub-clause (v) in the previous paragraph. Also, the attestation Form of UPSC in Para 1 & 2 clearly states that suppression or conviction even subsequent to the completion and submission of the form should be communicated 12 immediately to the UPSC or to the authority to whom Attestation Form sent earlier, failing which it would be deemed to be suppression of factual information. He submits that admittedly, the fact of conviction of the applicant was not intimated to the UPSC or the Education Deptt. by the Applicant at the relevant time.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents also states that only during the course of verification of the details of the F.I.R. in the name of the applicant, it was intimated by the Superintendent of Police, (Uttrakhand Vigilance Division, Sector Nainital, Haldwani) vide letter no. HO 370/24 - 6/2010/1589 dated 28-08-2019 that applicant had been convicted u/s 7 & 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and was sentenced to one year Rigorous Imprisonment along with a penalty of Rs. 5000/- u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and 3.5 (Three and a half) years of Rigorous Imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10000 u/s 13(I)(d) read with sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by Ld. Trial Court, Uttrakhand vide its order dated 03.05.2013. The Ld. Trial Court i.e.Additional District & Session 13 Court/Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Nainital had found him guilty of corruption charges of taking bribe of Rs. 25,000/-. It is pertinent to mention that as per the records, he was caught red-handed in a vigilance raid on 24.03.2010.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that applicant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Uttrakhand against the order of the Ld. Trial Court. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 30.10.2013 had ordered that "the sentence is suspended till the next date of listing and no coercive steps shall be taken" although the said appeal is pending before the Hon'ble High Court and the applicant has not yet been acquitted and the applicant had preferred the instant appeal by questioning the appointment of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) as 'illegal' as no notification regarding his appointment was published in the Official Gazette. The Hon'ble court did not exonerate him.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the applicant filed an O.A. No. 3687/2022 before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi 14 seeking directions for issuance of 'Offer of Appointment' to the post of Education Officer/Assistant Director of Education (re-designated as Dy. Director of Education) for which he was nominated by U.P.S.C. but was not offered appointment by Directorate of Education. In the hearing dated 20.12.2022, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted before the Hon'ble Tribunal that they would be satisfied if the applicant is allowed to make a representation addressed to the respondents, to be disposed of by a speaking order within a limited time frame. The Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and respondent no. 2 (The Secretary, Education) to pass a reasoned and speaking order in response to the representation of the applicant, within a period of four weeks and disposed of the O.A.
14. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that pursuant to the order dated 20.12.2022 of the Hon'ble CAT, the applicant submitted an application to the Secretary (Education) with the following prayers: (i) Consider the applicant for appointment to the post of Education Officer/Asst. Director of 15 Education (now re-designated as Dy. Director of Education); (ii) Issue appointment letter to the applicant on the post of Education Officer/Asst. Director of Education (now re-designated as Dy. Director of Education) as per the result dated 13.03.2019 published by the U.P.S.C. for appointment of 18 selected candidates; amd (iii) Grant all consequential benefits and the seniority, pay fixation arrears aceruing thereof, etc. to the Applicant. It is contended that after taking into account the facts stated in the representation of the applicant as well as the facts available with the Directorate of Education, the representation of the applicant was considered and his candidature for the post of Education Officer/Asst. was cancelled vide order no. F.8(26)/Sectt.Br./DDE/Pt.File/2019/228- 233 dated 01.03.2023. He, therefore, submits that no legal right vests with the Applicant particularly in recruitment. The employer has the right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. FIR/Conviction under Prevention of Corruption case also involves moral turpitude and the discretion vests with the employer, whether 16
15. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that while deciding the representation the legal propositions laid down in the following judgments were relied upon:
(i) In the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to several judgments has held that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria which is necessary to be fulfilled before appointment and an incumbent should not have antecedent of such a nature which may adjudge him unsuitable for the post. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in a criminal case where the incumbent has not been acquitted and the case is pending for trial, the employer may well be justified in not appointing such an incumbent or in terminating the services, as conviction ultimately may render him suitable for job and employer is not supposed to wait till the outcome of criminal case.
(ii) In Civil Appeal No. 11356 of 2018 (State of 17 Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar) decided on 26.11.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that even after the disclosure is made by a candidate, the employer would be well within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate.
While so considering, the employer can certainly take into account the job profile for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the charges leveled against the candidate.
(iii) In Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Vs. Anil Kanwariya Civil Appeal Nos. 5743-5744 of 2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of his employment, i.e. while submitting the declaration/ verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having been involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST. 18 Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not continue such an employee always must be given to the employer.
(iv) In Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1300), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed:
The purpose of requiring an employee to furnish information regarding prosomin/conviction, ere. in the regication form was to assess his character and antecedents for the purpose of employment and continuation in service; that suppression of material information and making a false statement in reply to the queries relating to prosecution and conviction had a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee; and that where it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters which had a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he could be 19 terminated from service during the period of probation without holding any inquiry. This court also made it clear that neither the gravity of the criminal offence nor the ultimate acquittal therein was relevant when considering whether a probationer who suppresses a material fact (of his being involved in a criminal case, in the personal information furnished to the employer) is fit to be continued as a probationer.
(v) In Sanjeev Singh Jadon vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh, bearing WP No.6176/2018 the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court vide judgment dated 23.03.2021 held that "even after the disclosure is made by a candidate, the employer would be well within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate. While so considering, the employer can certainly take into account the job profile for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the charges levelled against the candidate and whether the acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of composition".
16. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the applicant has been convicted u/s 7 & 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and was sentenced to one year Rigorous Imprisonment along with a penalty of Rs. 5000/-u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and 3.5 (Three and a half) years of Rigorous Imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10000 u/s 13(1)(d) read with sec. 13(2) of the 20 Prevention of Corruption Act vide order dated 03.05.2013 by the Ld. Additional District & Session Court/Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Nainital had found him guilty of corruption charges of taking bribe of Rs. 25,000/-. It is pertinent to mention that as per the records, he was caught red-handed in a vigilance raid on 24.03.2010. Further, the applicant has called the FIR "false and frivolous" but has not supported his assertion with any evidence or explanation. It is also emphasized that the applicant has neither been exonerated nor any final order quashing/ setting aside the decision of the Ld Additional District & Session Court/Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Nainital has been passed till date.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the applicant did not clearly disclose the fact of his conviction by the Hon'ble Criminal Court to the respondents. The applicant provided misleading information by ticking No to 12(f) Have you ever been convicted by a Court of Law for any offences? & 12i) If any case pending against you in any court of law at the time of filling up this attestation form? The attestation form had 21 instructions to strike out 'Yes' or 'No' as the case may be, however, the applicant has used both ticks and crosses to indicate his response. Copy of the attestation form's page is enclosed at Page 115 of OA. Clause 8 of the Advertisement clearly states that Action against Candidates found guilty of misconduct and the Applicant herein falls under sub-clause (v). Also, the attestation Form in Para 1 & 2 clearly states that suppression or conviction even subsequent to the completion and submission of the form should be communicated immediately to the UPSC or to the authority to whom Attestation Form sent earlier, failing which it would be deemed to be suppression of factual information. Admittedly, the conviction was not intimated to the UPSC or the Education Deptt. at the relevant time. Further, it is emphasized that mere appearance in the Document Verification process does not entitle the applicant to a right to appointment in case of being found ineligible.
18. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that mere filing of the Antecedent form with misleading information by ticking incorrect options would not give a legal right to the Applicant for 22 appointment. Further, mere suspension of the sentence of the applicant in the Criminal Appeal before the Hon'ble Uttrakhand High Court does not exonerate him and thus, he still remains ineligible for employment in the Directorate of Education on account of conviction under various sections of Prevention of Corruption Act. Further, the mere assertions of the applicant are not backed by any evidence or justification. The applicant was required to tick the relevant option in the Attestation Form. Moreover, the applicant has not marked a cross on all 'NO' options and has instead ticked the 'NO' option. Moreover, the substantial ground to cancel the candidature of the applicant was his conviction in a corruption case as well as a pending criminal case titled 'Inam Ali vs. State' (Hon'ble Uttrakhand High Court) related to the same Vigilance raid. The Respondents had sufficient and valid cause and reason to withhold the appointment of the applicant. The applicant was convicted of serious charges under various sections of Prevention of Corruption Act and was sentenced to 3.5 (Three and a half) years of Rigorous Imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10000 23 u/s 13(1)(d) read with sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by Ld. Trial Court, Uttrakhand vide its order dated 03.05.2013. The DOPT OM dated 16.08.2012 does not in any way direct the recruiting departments to issue appointment letters to ineligible candidates. The Directorate of Education GNCTD as well as the CCS Rules are clear to the extent that on conviction a person is liable to be terminated. No legal right vests with the Applicant particularly in recruitment. The employer has the right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. FIR/Conviction under Prevention of Corruption case also involves moral turpitude and the discretion vests with the employer. The interpretation given to judgment Daya Shankar Yadav Vs Union of India is not correct. The same dealt with Sec.323 (hurt)/ 504 (insulting) /506 (threat) IPC and not Prevention of Corruption Act/moral turpitude. The respondents' counsel also submitted that all official work in the year 2020 and a part of 2021 was hampered due to the disruption caused by Coronavirus. The appointment of the applicant remained pending as multiple clarifications from 24 various courts and offices were sought. Further, premature and hasty cancellation of the candidature of the applicant was avoided in the interest of justice.
19. Respondent No.3 - UPS has also filed the reply stating that no cause of action has accrued to the applicant to invoke the jurisdiction of judicial review of this Hon'ble Tribunal against the replying respondent in as much as no enforceable right of the applicant or any rule or binding instruction has been violated/infringed by the action of the replying respondent. Reliance is placed on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Ekta Shakti Foundation Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi", reported in AIR 2006 SC 2609.
20. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submitted that it is trite law that the selectee does not have the right of appointment. In this regard, reliance is placed on "Shankarsan Dash Vs Union of India", reported as (1991) 3 SCC 47, paras 7 & 8. It is further submitted that it is within the domain of the administrative Ministry to examine the antecedents of the applicant.
21. We have given a patient hearing to both the 25 counsels for the parties and with their assistance, carefully gone through the records.
22. We find that the applicant has been declared to be a convict by the judgment pronounced by the Anti Corruption Trial Court in Nanital. It is only the sentencing flowing out of the fact of conviction has been stayed by the order dated 30.10.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand, Nanital which had ordered that "the sentence is suspended till the next date of hearing and no coercive steps shall be taken.". There is no evidence on record to show whether the Govt. of Uttarakhand has taken any steps for vacating this interim protection accorded to the applicant by the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nanital. In the absence of such evidence, we come to the conclusion that the applicant has abused the legal process and using the protective umbrella of "no coercive steps" continued to remain in service of the Govt. of Uttarakhand and retired from the same on 30.11.2023. We will not be surprised to learn if the applicant is also in receipt of regular monthly pension from the Govt. of Uttarakhand. We agree with the judgments cited by 26 the respondents' counsel to the effect that there is no legal right vested with the applicant for agitating before this court and obtaining any order directing the respondents to offer him the job of Deputy Director Education (DDE). In the case of Avtar Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria which is necessary to be fulfilled before appointment and an incumbent should not have antecedent of such a nature which may adjudge him unsuitable for the post. In Civil Appeal No. 11356 of 2018 (State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that even after the disclosure is made by a candidate, the employer would be well within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate. In Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Vs. Anil Kanwariya Civil Appeal Nos. 5743- 5744 of 2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of his employment, i.e. while submitting the declaration/ verification and/or applying for a 27 post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having been involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST.
Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee.
23. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, 1991 AIR 1612 is the leading case in which it is held that merely cause a person is participated in the selection process and found his name in the select list does not confer a right on them for ultimate appointment. He or she can at best only agitate that his case may be considered by the respondents for appointment. In the case in hand, even such a legal right is not 28 available to the applicant inasmuch as we have straightway in the very first instance come to the conclusion that the applicant is a convict and as such, no legal rights demanding reliefs as he has prayed for in this OA under Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985 will be granted to him. The only judgment that the applicant has quoted is Daya Shankar Yadav's case (supra) does not help his case because that judgment only lays down the guidelines for the respondents when they seek information with respect to the antecedents of the prospective candidates aspiring for jobs in the public service.
24. Under the above facts and circumstances, we find the OA being devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand) on the applicant payable to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund for wasting precious time of this Tribunal as he had not initially come with the clean hands admitting that he is suffering from order of conviction and that only his sentence as a consequence of such conviction has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand. We would 29 urge the respondent no.1 - Chief Secretary to Govt. of NCT of Delhi to share a copy of this judgment with his counterpart, i.e., Chief Secretary, Govt. of Uttarakhand, for appropriate action against the applicant as he deems fit.
(Ajay Pratap Singh) (B. Anand) Member (J) Member(A) /lg/