Giridhari Bag vs Commandant on 27 January, 2023

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Giridhari Bag vs Commandant on 27 January, 2023

Bench: Biswanath Rath

ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K

WPC(OAC) NO.737 OF 2005

AFR In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India.

Giridhari Bag : Petitioner

-Versus-

Commandant, Orissa State Armed Police
(OSAP), Koraput & ors. : Opp.Parties

For Petitioner : M/s.S.Mohanty, S.C.Samal
& S.Rath, Advs.
For O.Ps. : Mr.S.Ghosh, AGA

CORAM :
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH

Date of hearing : 17.01.2023 & Date of Judgment : 27.01.2023

1. Originally the Application was filed in the Orissa Administrative

Tribunal. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this

Court for its disposal at this end.

2. The Applicant (Petitioner) through the Original Application

(presently Writ Petition) involves the following prayer :-

"I. The orders passed under Annexure-2 and under
Annexure-4 by the Respondent Nos.1 and 4 be quashed.
II. The Respondents be directed to reinstate in service
retrospectively w.e.f. the date of his removal i.e. 21.05.02 with
all consequential service and pecuniary benefits.
III. And pass any other order/orders as deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
Page 1 of 31
// 2 //

3. Background involving the case is the Petitioner is a Scheduled

Caste person. After passing Matriculation/Board of Secondary Education

Certificate Course in the year 1998, being unable to undertake further

education, the Petitioner sought for an employment. Coming to know of

an advertisement for the post of regular recruitment of Sepoy by the

Selection Board at OSAP 3rd Battalion, Koraput, the Petitioner applied for

the said post. Based on recruitment process and interview, he was found

to be suitable and appointed as Sepoy pursuant to Appointment Order

No.119 dated 5.1.2002 and joined the post. Copy of such Appointment

Order appears at Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition. While the Petitioner

was undergoing training after his appointment pursuant to his

appointment letter, he received a letter dated 21.5.2002 issued from the

Office of Respondent/O.P.1 that there is pendency of some criminal cases

involving the Petitioner in Town P.S. Case No.203 dated 29.12.99, No.36

dated 19.4.2000, No.59 dated 3.4.2001 and No.72 dated 20.4.2001 under

different Sections of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged therein that

though such criminal proceedings were subjudiced in the court of law at

the relevant point of time, in the inquiry involving a verification process

by the Competent Authority, it was found that the Petitioner suppressed

all such involvements in the desired Application, further on the basis of
Page 2 of 31
// 3 //

confidential report observing the Candidate is an anti-social and a

criminal and it is on the basis of such report, the Petitioner was removed

from service on 21.5.2002. Copy of order of removal appears at

Annexure-2 of the Writ Petition. It is claimed, after removal of service,

the Petitioner approached several times even on production of certified

copies of orders of acquittal in his favour and finding no respite, he was

compelled to make a representation to the Authority on 5.6.2004 for re-

consideration of his case for re-employment in the post of Sepoy. Copy of

representation appears at Annexure-3. Pleading further discloses, the

representation of the Petitioner was finally rejected and the rejection

order was communicated to the Petitioner, vide Memo No.4255 dated

20.11.2004. Copy of such rejection order appears at Annexure-4.

4. Mr.S.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner in the above

factual background advanced his submission that the order of removal

from service, vide Annexure-2 is a termination simplicitor and passed

without any inquiry further in the involvement of the Petitioner. The

order is also alleged to have been passed in violation of the principle of

natural justice. Taking into account the provision in the CCA Rules,

Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner claimed, there cannot be

any order of termination from service of a candidate already recruited

through regular Selection Board if with a stigma in violation of Articles

Page 3 of 31
// 4 //

14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also alleged, the termination

order is not only in violation of the principle of natural justice but also

without application of mind and has been passed hastily. On the aspect of

criminal cases pending against the Petitioner, learned counsel for the

Petitioner through the pleadings in Annexure-5 to 8 series submitted, SC

No.35/2000 was tried by the C.J.M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge,

Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna arising out of G.R. Case No.573 of 1999, there

has been already judgment in this case on 11.6.2001 with an order of

acquittal in favour of the Petitioner. Similarly, SC No.42/2002 was tried

by the C.J.M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna

arising out of G.R. Case No.154/2000 relating to Bhawanipatna Town

P.S. Case No.36 dated 19.4.2000. Here also by judgment dated

28.3.2003, the Petitioner has been acquitted. SC No.3/4 of 2002 SC

No.42/2002 was tried by the C.J.M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge,

Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna arising out of G.R. Case No.196/2001 relating

to Bhawanipatna Town P.S. Case No.59 of 2001. Here also by judgment

dated 21.5.2002 the Petitioner has been acquitted. Similarly coming to

G.R. Case No.234/2001, TR No.309/2003 tried by the J.M.F.C., First

Class, Bhawanipatna relating to Bhawanipatna Town P.S. Case No.72 of

2001, the Petitioner has been acquitted by the judgment dated 11.11.2003.

Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner claimed, even in spite of

Page 4 of 31
// 5 //

submission of all the acquittal orders before O.P.2, surprisingly rejection

of the representation of the Petitioner, vide Annnexure-4 has been passed.

Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner thus claimed, the

termination of the Petitioner is biased only on the basis of no disclosure

of such criminal cases. Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner on

the footing that the Petitioner has been acquitted of all such criminal

cases, non-mentioning of pendency of such cases in the Form submitted

for appointment giving disclosures on the antecedent of the Petitioner

remains immaterial. Learned counsel for the Petitioner thus contended,

the Competent Authority failed in appreciating all the above aspects and

therefore has arrived at passing illegal and arbitrary order of termination.

5. Filing written note of submission on reiteration of all such grounds

taken note herein above, Mr.Mohanty took this Court to some decisions

to find support to his case, such as in K.Gopal @ Khola Gopal vrs. Union

of India & ors : AIR 2015 SCW 483, Babulal vrs. State of Haryana &

ors (C.A.No.1309 of 1986 decided on 16.1.1991), Shravan Kumar Jha

& ors. Vrs. Ram Sevak Sharma & ors : AIR 1991 SC 309, Avtar Singh

vrs. Union of India : AIR 2016 SC 3598, S.Naresh Rao vrs. Principal

Secretary to Government & ors. (WPC(OAC) No.1058/2016) and

Pawan Kumar vrs. Union of India : AIR 2020 SC 2829. This apart,

learned counsel for the Petitioner also relied upon some other decisions in

Page 5 of 31
// 6 //

Babu Lal vrs. State of Haryana & ors. : (1991) SCC 335, Commissioner

of Police, Delhi & ors. Vrs. Dhaval Singh : AIR 1999 SC 2326,

Joginder Singh vrs. Union Territory of Chandigarh : 2015 AIR SCW

483 (AIR 2015 SC (Supp.) 1536 and Mohinder Singh Gill & anr. Vrs.

The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & ors. : AIR 1978 SC

851.

Reading through all the above decisions, Mr.Mohanty, learned

counsel for the Petitioner attempted to bring the decisions therein to the

rescue of the Petitioner and made a request to this Court for interfering

with the impugned order and setting aside the order of termination as well

as the order of rejection.

6. Mr.S.Ghosh, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing

for the O.Ps. making strong opposition to the Petitioner's claim

submitted, it is a clear case of suppression of material facts. Through

Annexure-B to the counter affidavit of the O.Ps. at Page-60 of the Brief,

Mr.Ghosh taking this Court to Clauses-7 & 8 contended, there was flat

denial to both these vital requirements by the Petitioner in filling the

Verification Roll, therefore, completely making denial of even the

Petitioner being an accused in any criminal case at the time of filling of

such Roll. This Form was filled up by the Petitioner himself. For there is

compulsory requirement of disclosure on antecedent involving the nature

Page 6 of 31
// 7 //

of job, information as against Clauses-7 & 8 was very much essential. For

Mr.Ghosh, this suppression of criminal case aspect could not be noticed

for a long time but however during training period, Form No.101 was

sent to the Superintendent of Police, Kalahandi on 9.4.2002 for necessary

verification on the character and antecedent of the Petitioner. It is after

due inquiry, the Superintendent of Police, Kalahandi in his letter dated

15.5.2002 reported that the Petitioner was involved in as many as four

criminal cases involving offences under Sections 394/397 of I.P.C.,

307/34, I.P.C., 294/307 of I.P.C. and 332 of I.P.C. and all such cases were

subjudiced and were already instituted by the time of recruitment of the

Petitioner. Mr.Ghosh further contended, the Petitioner in spite of being

aware of facing such trials in number of cases indicated herein above

deliberately suppressed the matter. For the Petitioner already faced in

criminal cases, the Authority got justified after necessary verification that

the Petitioner is a person with criminal antecedent and not fit for holding

the job, particularly looking to the positioning of the Petitioner in a

discipline service. The order of termination since based on such inquiry,

Mr.Ghosh contended, for the admission of the Petitioner through his

pleadings that he was facing all such cases at the time of recruitment

process, the Petitioner is a person of having criminal antecedent and this

Page 7 of 31
// 8 //

aspect has also been established, therefore, there was no requirement of

getting into further inquiry.

Taking this Court to other grounds in the counter, Mr.Ghosh,

learned Additional Government Advocate contended, this is a proven

case of establishing that the Petitioner is a person having criminal

antecedent, and therefore, there should not be any leniency shown

involving such person, particularly keeping in view the service involved

herein is in Police Department.

Mr.Ghosh to substantiate his case also took this Court to several

decisions to support the State's case, such as Avtar Singh vrs. Union of

India & ors. : (2016) 8 SCC 471, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran

Nigam Ltd. & anr. vrs. Anil Kanwariya : (2021) 10 SCC 136 and a very

recent decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in Ex-Const/Dvr Mukesh

Kumar Raigar vrs. Union of India & ors. (SLP(C) No.10499 of 2022

decided on 16.1.2023. It is for the decisions also supporting the case of

the State Authority, Mr.Ghosh contended, the Writ Petition should be

rejected holding the Petitioner has unwanted personality to hold a

position in the discipline service.

7. Considering the rival contentions of the Parties and coming to the

factual background, this Court finds, the advertisement was made for the

post of Sepoy on 16.11.2001. The Petitioner faced the interview and was

Page 8 of 31
// 9 //

issued with an order of appointment on 5.1.2002. Verification Roll

involving the Petitioner was submitted. This Roll at Clauses-7 & 8 reads

as follows :-

"7. Whether the applicant has even been accused in a criminal
case or has ever been in prison, if so, give details. - No
8. Whether in debt and whether any criinal case or civil suits is
pending against him, if so, give details. - No."

Annexure-B, the Verification Roll submitted by the Petitioner on

9.4.2002 is a clear disclosure against Clauses-7 & 8 indicating therein

that the Petitioner herein is not an accused in criminal case. In Clauses-7

& 8 there is flat denial intimating the Applicant/Petitioner had no

criminal case pending against him by the date of submission of Form on

9.4.2002. From the Police verification and on the own submission of the

Petitioner, the Petitioner faced the following cases.

1. SC No.35/2000 arising out of G.R. Case No.573 of 1999.
2. SC No.42/2002 arising out of G.R. Case No.154/2000.
3. SC No.3/4 of 2002 arising out of G.R. Case No.196/2001.
4. G.R. Case No.234/2001/TR No.309/2003 involving
Bhawanipatna Town P.S. Case No.72 of 2001."

All the four cases taken note herein above were all instituted in

between 1999 to 2001, undisputedly, by the date of submission of the

Verification Roll. Undisputedly, four cases were pending as on the date

of submission of the Verification Roll by the Petitioner in the year 2002.

Even assuming that the Petitioner was neither acquitted nor convicted by

Page 9 of 31
// 10 //

the time of submission of Verification Roll, nothing prevented the

Petitioner to simply indicate the pendency of such cases, as undisputedly

the Petitioner was neither acquitted nor convicted by such date, such

disclosure would have effect otherwise. Non-disclosure of such vital

aspect involving recruitment in the Discipline Department and looking to

the number of cases faced by the Petitioner certainly amount to deliberate

suppression of information of pendency of criminal cases; may be the

Petitioner did not disclose all these to gain over the recruitment Authority

and/or the Employer by such suppression. Therefore, the Petitioner did

not apply for the post with clear intention of securing an order of

appointment and his attempt is in suppression of very vital information.

8. From the order of termination at Annexure-2, this Court finds, after

the Petitioner was engaged, a further verification of the character and

antecedent on the recruitment of the Petitioner as Sepoy was made at the

level of the Superintendent of Police, Kalahandi and the inquiry clearly

revealed, the Petitioner was facing trial in four criminal cases involving

Bhawanipatna Town P.S. Case No.203 dated 29.12.1999 under Sections

394/397 of I.P.C., Bhawanipatna Town P.S. Case No.36 dated 19.4.2000

under Sections 307/34 of I.P.C., Bhawanipatna Town P.S. Case No.59

dated 3.4.2001 under Sections 294/307 of I.P.C. and Bhawanipatna Town

P.S. Case No.72 dated 20.4.2001 under Section 332 of I.P.C. For

Page 10 of 31
// 11 //

pendency of such large number of cases and in involvement of serious

offences against the Petitioner even therein, the Petitioner was prima facie

found to be an anti-social and a man with repeated criminal background

and thus was terminated, vide Annexure-2.

9. Coming to the rejection of the representation at Annexure-4, this

Court finds, further the Authority on examination of the whole aspect

found, the Petitioner had a clear disclosure of non-involvement in

criminal cases by the time of submission of such Form. For clear

disclosure and revealing of four criminal cases pending against the

Petitioner, subsequently provisions, vide PMR-668(a), PMR-673(c) and

Rule-13 of Orissa Military Police Manual, 1953 were all attracted to the

case of the Petitioner, and therefore, the Competent Authority appears to

have not finding any scope of even considering the case of the Petitioner,

who is claiming re-consideration on the order of his termination on the

basis of acquittal of the Petitioner in the meantime. For the opinion of this

Court, looking to the type of job the Petitioner was holding and the

Institution involved therein, the paramount consideration at the relevant

point of time was if there is suppression of material disclosures or not, the

narrations herein above even as admitted by the Petitioner, he was

definitely an accused at least in four criminal cases at the time of filing of

Application for such service and this was also a situation when the

Page 11 of 31
// 12 //

Verification Roll was obtained from the Petitioner. Once the Petitioner

has deliberate suppression of material facts of his already involvement in

four criminal cases, had this been disclosed at the time of applying for the

post, there would not have been any occasion in entertaining such

Application and involving the Petitioner in the interview process even.

There is gross negligence and deliberate suppression by the Petitioner for

an attempt to achieve a post in Police Department. For the opinion of this

Court, there cannot be showing of any leniency to such person,

particularly keeping in view the employment was in discipline service.

10. It is at this stage, keeping in view the grounds in filing the Writ

Petition and the counter objection of the State Authority, this Court now

proceeds to take into account the decisions cited at Bar. First of all this

Court here takes into account the decisions of the Petitioner in Dhaval

Singh (supra), which is a case where the Applicant also put a cross in the

relevant column meant for disclosure of pendency of criminal case. The

Applicant was selected in 1995, however, before the order of appointment

could be issued, the Applicant realsing his mistake against such column

communicated to the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 15.11.1995, i.e.,

much ahead of the date of appointment admitting his fault and giving a

disclosure thereby of pendency of a criminal case. The case at hand has a

clear concealment and cannot fit into such fact. This decision has no

Page 12 of 31
// 13 //

application to the present case. In Babu Lal (supra), the background

herein is the Applicant was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Food and

Supply Department by order dated 13.4.1975 against Ex-Service quota.

He was served with suspension order on 15.4.1980 on the Department

coming to know the pendency of a criminal proceeding and as a

consequence of pendency of criminal case, the Petitioner therein was

terminated. This is a case where initiation of the criminal case is taking

place in continuing of the Petitioner in employment, which does not fit to

the fact of the case at hand. In Joginder Singh (supra), the Petitioner

therein applied for the post in 1997, succeeded in the interview in 2001

and found to be fit for the selection to the post of Constable. In the

verification of antecedent, he was found to be facing F.I.R. No.200 dated

14.4.1998. In the trial he got acquitted in 1999. The Applicant being

terminated and not being posted went to the C.A.T., Chandigarh for a

direction for issuing of appointment order. The Tribunal passed order on

12.3.2003 allowing the Original Application of the Applicant thereby

directing appointment of the Petitioner, as Constable. The Respondent

therein went to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which set aside the

order of the C.A.T. with observation that what would be relevant is the

conduct and character of the Candidate and not the actual result thereof in

the criminal case and upheld the decision of the Authority on the

Page 13 of 31
// 14 //

premises of bad antecedent. Hon'ble apex Court in its judgment through

paragraph-27 held, the High Court has committed a grave error both on

facts and in law and it has failed to follow the legal principles laid down

and upheld the decision of the C.A.T. The case involved recruitment

process in 1997 and selection in 2001. The Petitioner got entangled in

criminal case in 1998 and got acquitted in 1999. In reading the said

decision, this Court finds, this case does not involve a case of suppression

but a case of mere facing of a criminal case and it does not fit to the case

at hand. In Pramod Singh Kirar vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh & ors. :

2022 SCC Online SC 1661, it involves a posting of Police Constable but

in the verification form, the Applicant clearly mentioned of pendency of a

case under Section 498A of I.P.C. and his candidature was rejected as he

was already involved in a criminal case but was already acquitted. The

Single Judge allowed the proceeding and set aside the cancellation of his

candidature. State went in Writ Appeal. The Division Bench allowed the

Appeal and set aside the order of the Single Bench. The Division Bench

allowed the Appeal on the premises of concealment of information in

involvement of criminal case. By setting aside the judgment of the

Division Bench, the Hon'ble apex Court allowed the Appeal on the

footing the Applicant involved in the criminal case alleged in 2001 and

was already acquitted in 2006, which has nothing to do in the

Page 14 of 31
// 15 //

appointment process taking place in 2013-14. This decision also does not

fit to the case at hand. The decision in Shrawan Kumar Jha & ors. vrs.

State of Bihar & ors. : 1991 Supp.(1) SCC 330 also does not fit to the

case at hand, as this is not a case involving Police Department where

criminal antecedent is very essential. In Avtar Singh (supra), the three

Judges Bench in the Hon'ble apex Court on examination of several

decisions on this point finally through Paragraph-38 of the judgment

came to observe as follows :-

"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and
reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we
summarize our conclusion thus:

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction,
acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or
after entering into service must be true and there should be no
suppression or false mention of required information.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of
candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice
of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such
information.

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the Government
orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of
taking the decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in
a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded
before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later
comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse
appropriate to the case may be adopted : -

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been
recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence
which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post

Page 15 of 31
// 16 //

in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such
suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial
in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the
employee.

38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral
turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and
it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has
been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to
antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of
the employee.

38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a
concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider
antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character
verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial
nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its
discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.

38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple
pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance
and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or
terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple
criminal cases were pending may not be proper.

38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at
the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the
appointing authority would take decision after considering the
seriousness of the crime.

38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding
Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of
termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or
submitting false information in verification form.

38.10. For determining suppression or false information
attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such
information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be
disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to
knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective
manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such

Page 16 of 31
// 17 //

cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false
information as to a fact which was not even asked for.

38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio
falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."

11. This Court here reading Paragraph-38 of the Avtar Singh decision,

in Paragraph-38.1, Hon'ble apex Court held, the information provided by

a Applicant to the Employer must be true and there should be no

suppression or false mention of required information. In the case at hand,

the information provided by the Applicant undisputedly amounts to

suppression and false mention of the required information. Thus the

decision at Paragraph-38.4 deals with a case in case of suppression of

false information of involvement of criminal case and conviction or

acquittal had already recorded before filling of the

Application/Verification Form and such fact later comes to the

knowledge of the Employer, Hon'ble apex Court framed guideline under

Paragraphs-38.4.1, 38.4.2 & 38.4.3, which are to be followed. For the

difference in the facts here, these Clauses have no application to the

present case except there is clear application of Clause-38.1 and finds to

be supportive to the case of the O.Ps. rather.

12. Coming to the discussions on the citations by Mr.Ghosh, learned

Additional Government Advocate for the O.Ps., relied on the decision in

Avtar Singh (supra) applicability of decision here is already dealt in

Paragraph-11 above. The decision of Anil Kanwariya (supra) involves
Page 17 of 31
// 18 //

termination of an Employee on un-disclosure of pending criminal cases

(suppression of material facts) thereby giving a false declaration. In

deciding the object of required information in Attestation Form and

thereby declaration to ascertain and verify the character and antecedent of

the Incumbent to adjudge his suitability to enter into and continue in

service through Paragraphs-8 to 16, Hon'ble apex Court came to observe

as follows :-

"8. While considering the aforesaid issues, few decisions of this Court on
appointment obtained by fraud/misrepresentation and/or
appointment obtained by suppression of material facts are required to be
referred to and considered.

8.1. In B. Chinnam Naidu (supra), this Court has observed that the object of
requiring information in the attestation form and the declaration thereafter
by the candidate is to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to
judge his suitability to enter into or continue in service. It is further
observed that when a candidate suppresses material information and/or
gives false information, he cannot claim any right for appointment or
continuance in service.

8.2. In Devendra Kumar (supra), while joining the training, the employee
was asked to submit an affidavit giving certain information, particularly,
whether he had ever been involved in any criminal case. The employee
submitted an affidavit stating that he had never been involved in any
criminal case. The employee completed his training satisfactorily and it was
at this time that the employer in pursuance of the process of character
verification came to know that the employee was in fact involved in a
criminal case. It was found that the final report in that case had been
submitted by the prosecution and accepted by the Judicial Magistrate
concerned. On the basis of the same, the employee was discharged abruptly
on the ground that since he was a temporary government servant, he could
be removed from service without holding an enquiry. The said order was
challenged by the employee by filing a writ petition before a Single Judge of
the High Court which was dismissed. The Division Bench upheld that order,
which was the subject matter of appeal before this Court. Dismissing the
appeal, this Court observed and held that the question is not whether the
employee is suitable for the post. The pendency of a criminal
case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such
pendency. The case pending against a person might not involve moral

Page 18 of 31
// 19 //

turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral
turpitude. It is further observed that the information sought by the employer
if not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of
material information and in that eventuality, the service becomes liable to be
terminated, even if there had been no further trial or the person concerned
stood acquitted/discharged.

8.3. It is further observed by this Court in Devendra Kumar that where an
applicant/employee gets an order by misrepresenting the facts or by playing
fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the
eye of the law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal". It
is further observed and held that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear
the fruit and benefit those persons who have defrauded or misrepresented
themselves and in such circumstances the court should not perpetuate the
fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf.

8.4. The relevant observations in the said decision are in paras 12, 13, 18 &
25, which are as under: (Devendra Kumar case, SCC pp.368-69 & 371)

"12. So far as the issue of obtaining the appointment by
misrepresentation is concerned, it is no more res integra. The question is
not whether the applicant is suitable for the post. The pendency of a
criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of
such pendency. The case pending against a person might not involve moral
turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral
turpitude. In fact, the information sought by the employer if not disclosed
as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material
information. In that eventuality, the service becomes liable to be
terminated, even if there had been no further trial or the person concerned
stood acquitted/discharged.

13. It is a settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an office
by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent
authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. "Fraud
avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal." [Vide S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1: AIR 1994 SC 853.] In
Lazarus Estates Ltd. V. Beasley [(1956) 1 QB 702: (1956) 2 WLR 502:
(1956) 1 ALL ER 341 (CA)] the Court observed without equivocation
that: (QB p. 712)

... No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to
stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything."

18. The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases is that dishonesty
should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who
have frauded or misrepresented themselves. In such circumstances the
court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their
behalf. In Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran (1995) Supp (4) SCC 100 this
court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment
Page 19 of 31
// 20 //

in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M.
Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655, observed as under: (M.
Bhaskaran case, SCC p. 104, para 6)

If by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the same
cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a court of law as the
employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of
the employer.

25. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the
subsequent conduct of party cannot sanctify the same. Sublato
fundamento cadit opus - a foundation being removed, the
superstructure falls. A person having done wrong cannot take
advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate
the lawful trial by a competent court. In such a case the legal
maxim nullus commodum caprere potest de injuria sua propria
applies. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge
that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or
investigation. [Vide Union of India v. Major General Madan Lal
Yadav (1996) 4 SCC 127:1996 SCC (Cri) 592: AIR 1996 SC 1340
and Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224: 2000 SCC
(Cri) 1056.] Nor can a person claim any right arising out of his
own wrongdoing (jus ex injuria non oritur).

8.5 In Jainendra Singh (supra), this Court summarised the principles to be
considered in a case where the appointment is obtained by misrepresentation
and/or suppression of facts by candidates/appointees as under:

"29.1. Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be legitimately
treated as voidable at the option of the employer or could be recalled by
the employer and in such cases merely because the respondent employee
has continued in service for a number of years, on the basis of such
fraudulently obtained employment, cannot get any equity in his favour or
any estoppel against the employer.
29.2. Verification of the character and antecedents is one of the
important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to the
post under the State and on account of his antecedents the appointing
authority if find not desirable to appoint a person to a disciplined force can
it be said to be unwarranted.
29.3. When appointment was procured by a person on the basis of forged
documents, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the
employer and, therefore, it would create no equity in his favour or any
estoppel against the employer while resorting to termination without
holding any inquiry.
29.4. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving
false information cannot claim right to continue in service and the
employer, having regard to the nature of employment as well as other
aspects, has the discretion to terminate his services.
29.5. The purpose of calling for information regarding involvement in
any criminal case or detention or conviction is for the purpose of
Page 20 of 31
// 21 //

verification of the character/antecedents at the time of recruitment and
suppression of such material information will have clear bearing on the
character and antecedents of the candidate in relation to his continuity in
service.

29.6. The person who suppressed the material information and/or gives
false information cannot claim any right for appointment or continuity in
service.

29.7. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed
service is quite distinct from other services and, therefore, any deliberate
statement or omission regarding a vital information can be seriously
viewed and the ultimate decision of the appointing authority cannot be
faulted.

29.8. An employee on probation can be discharged from service or may
be refused employment on the ground of suppression of material
information or making false statement relating to his involvement in the
criminal case, conviction or detention, even if ultimately he was acquitted
of the said case, inasmuch as such a situation would make a person
undesirable or unsuitable for the post.

29.9. An employee in the uniformed service pre-supposes a higher level
of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the
contrary such a service born in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated.

29.10. The authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing
Constables, are under duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate to find
out whether he is suitable for the post of a Constable and so long as the
candidate has not been acquitted in the criminal case, he cannot be held to
be suitable for appointment to the post of Constable."

8.6. In Daya Shankar Yadav (supra), this Court had an 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 and antecedents of the candidate
so as to assess his suitability for the post. It is 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:

"15...(a) If the declarant has answered the questions in the
affirmative and furnished the details of any criminal case (wherein
he was convicted or acquitted by giving benefit of doubt for want
of evidence), the employer may refuse to offer him employment (or
if already employed on probation, discharge him from service), if
he is found to be unfit having regard to the nature and gravity of
the offence/crime in which he was involved.

Page 21 of 31
// 22 //

(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 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.

(c) Where the declarant has answered the questions in the negative
and on verification it is found that the answers were false, the
employer may refuse to employ the declarant (or discharge him, if
already employed), even if the declarant had been cleared of the
charges or is acquitted. This is because when there is suppression
or non-disclosure of material information bearing on his character,
that itself becomes a reason for not employing the declarant.

(d) Where the attestation form or verification form does not contain
proper or adequate queries requiring the declarant to disclose his
involvement in any criminal proceedings, or where the candidate
was unaware of initiation of criminal proceedings when he gave
the declarations in the verification roll/attestation form, then the
candidate cannot be found fault with, for not furnishing the
relevant information. But if the employer by other means (say
police verification or complaints, etc.) learns about the
involvement of the declarant, the employer can have recourse to
courses (a) or (b) above."

Thereafter, it is observed and held that an employee can be
discharged from service or a prospective employee may be refused
employment on the ground of ........suppression of material
information or making false statement in reply to queries relating
to prosecution or conviction for a criminal offence (even if he was
ultimately acquitted in the criminal case).

8.7. In Abhijit Singh Pawar (supra), when the employee participated in the
selection process, he tendered an affidavit disclosing the pending criminal
case against him. The affidavit was filed on 22.12.2012. According to the
disclosure, a case registered in the year 2006 was pending on the date when
the affidavit was tendered. However, within four days of filing such an
affidavit, a compromise was entered into between the original complainant
and the employee and an application for compounding the offence was filed
under Section 320 Cr.P.C. The employee came to be discharged in view of
the deed of compromise. That thereafter the employee was selected in the
examination and was called for medical examination. However, around the
same time, his character verification was also undertaken and after due
consideration of the character verification report, his candidature was
rejected. The employee filed a writ petition before the High Court
challenging rejection of his candidature. The learned single Judge of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed the said writ petition. The judgment
and order passed by the learned single Judge directing the State to appoint
Page 22 of 31
// 23 //

the employee came to be confirmed by the Division Bench which led to
appeal before this Court. After considering catena of decisions on the point
including the decision of this Court in the case of Avtar Singh, this Court
upheld the order of the State rejecting the candidature of the employee by
observing that as held in Avtar Singh, even in cases where a truthful
disclosure about a concluded case was made, the employer would still have
a right to consider antecedents of the candidate and could not be compelled
to appoint such candidate.

8.8. After reproducing and/or re-considering para 38.5 of the decision in the
case of Avtar Singh (supra), in paragraph 13, this Court observed and held
as under:

"13. In Avtar Singh (supra), though this Court was principally
concerned with the question as to non-disclosure or wrong
disclosure of information, it was observed in para 38.5 that even in
cases where a truthful disclosure about a concluded case was made,
the employer would still have a right to consider antecedents of the
candidate and could not be compelled to appoint such candidate.

8.9. In the said decision, this Court also considered the conduct on the part
of the employee in getting discharge on the basis of the compromise which
was obtained within a period of four days of filing the affidavit/disclosure.
In paragraph 14, it is observed and held as under:

"14. In the present case, as on the date when the respondent had
applied, a criminal case was pending against him. Compromise
was entered into only after an affidavit disclosing such pendency
was filed. On the issue of compounding of offences and the effect
of acquittal under Section 320(8) of CrPC, the law declared by this
Court in Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685, specially in paras 34 and
35 completely concludes the issue. 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.

9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to
the facts of the case on hand, the impugned order passed by the Division
Bench dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the learned
single Judge quashing and setting aside the order of termination terminating
the services of the employee on the ground of non-disclosure/suppression of
material fact and filing a false declaration and directing the appellants to
reinstate the respondent-employee is unsustainable.

10. Apart from the fact that at the time when the respondent applied in the
month of October/November, 2013 though he was already convicted by the
Page 23 of 31
// 24 //

competent court and was given the benefit under Section 3 of the Act 1958
only, he did not disclose his conviction, but even at the time when he filed a
declaration on 14.04.2015 he filed a false declaration that neither any
criminal case is pending against him nor he has been convicted by any court
of law and relying upon such a declaration the appellants gave him
appointment. Only on police verification/receipt of the antecedent's report
from the Superintendent of Police, Sawai Madhopur, the appellants came to
know about the conviction of the respondent. Therefore, the appellants were
absolutely justified in terminating the services of the respondent.

11. Even the conduct on the part of the respondent to obtain the order
subsequently from the learned Sessions Court in an appeal and getting the
benefit of Section 12 of the Act 1958 deserves consideration. As observed
hereinabove, the judgment and order of conviction by the learned trial Court
was passed as far back as on 5.8.2013. For two years, the respondent did not
file any appeal before the learned Sessions Court. After a period of
approximately two years and after he obtained the appointment on the basis
of the false declaration that neither any criminal case is pending against him
nor he has been convicted by any court of law and having realised that his
conviction and the benefit granted under Section 3 of the Act 1958 by the
learned trial Court only will come in his way, subsequently after a period of
two years he filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Court on
11.08.29015 and the appeal came to be disposed of within a period of one
month, i.e., on 9.9.2015 and the learned Sessions Court granted the benefit
of Section 12 of the Act 1958.

12. From the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court, it
appears that the respondent only prayed for giving the benefit of Section
12 of the Act 1958 and nothing was contended by him with regard to
conviction and order of sentence. Therefore, with a view to get out of the
conviction and the benefit of Section 3 of the Act 1958 only and having
realised that his conviction may come in his way, he preferred an appeal
after a period of two years and obtained the benefit of Section 12 of the Act
1958 which provides that a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with
under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer
disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such
law.

13. Even otherwise, subsequently getting the benefit of Section 12 of the
Act 1958 shall not be helpful to the respondent inasmuch as the question is
about filing a false declaration on 14.04.2015 that neither any criminal case
is pending against him nor he has been convicted by any court of law, which
was much prior to the order passed by the learned Sessions Court granting
the benefit of Section 12 of the Act 1958. As observed hereinabove, even in
case of subsequent acquittal, the employee once made a false declaration
and/or suppressed the material fact of pending criminal case shall not be
entitled to an appointment as a matter of right.

14. The issue/question may be considered from another angle, from the
employer's point of view. The question is not about whether an employee
Page 24 of 31
// 25 //

was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been
subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or
trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the
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 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. The choice/option
whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be
given to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and as
observed hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee cannot claim
the appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right.

15. In view of the afore-stated facts and circumstances of the case, both, the
learned Division Bench as well as the learned Single Judge have clearly
erred in quashing and setting aside the order of termination terminating the
services of the respondent on the ground of having obtained an appointment
by suppressing material fact and filing a false declaration. The order of
reinstatement is wholly untenable and unjustified.

16. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present
appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division
Bench, as well as, the order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing
and setting aside the order of termination are hereby quashed and set aside.
Consequently, the writ petition filed by the respondent-employee stands
dismissed and the order of termination stands restored. However, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."

This case appears to be fitting to the case of the State-O.Ps.

In a very recent decision in the case of Ex-Const/Dvr Mukesh

Kumar Raigar vrs. Union of India & ors. : 2023 SCC Online SC 27 :

(SLP(C) No.10499 of 2022 decided on 16.1.2023) , Hon'ble apex Court

in Paragraphs-9 to 14 came to observe as follows :-

"9. Having regard to the guiding principles, laid down in case of
Avtar Singh (supra) and in case of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra), this
Court has no hesitation in holding that the Single Bench of the High
Court had committed an error in interfering with the order passed by the
Page 25 of 31
// 26 //

respondents-authorities. The respondents-authorities had after taking
into consideration the decision in case of Avtar Singh terminated the
services of the petitioner holding inter-alia that while the petitioner was
appointed in CISF, a criminal case was pending against him at the time
of his enrolment in the force, but he did not reveal the same and that
there was deliberate suppression of facts which was an aggravating
circumstance. It was also held that CISF being an armed force of Union
of India, is deployed in sensitive sectors such as airports, ports,
department of atomic energy, department of space, metro, power and
steel, for internal security duty etc., and therefore, the force personnel
are required to maintain discipline of the highest order; and that the
involvement of the petitioner in such grave offences debarred him from
the appointment. Such a well-reasoned and well considered decision of
the respondent-authorities should not have been interfered by the Single
Bench in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution,
more particularly when there were no allegations of malafides or of
non-observance of rules of natural justice or of breach of statutory rules
were attributed against the respondent authorities.

10. The Constitution Bench, in case of State of Orissa & Others vs.
Bidyabhushan Mohapatra had observed way back in 1963 that having
regard to the gravity of the established misconduct, the punishing
authority had the power and jurisdiction to impose punishment. The
penalty was not open to review by the High Court under Article 226. A
three-judge Bench in case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India &
Ors. had also held that judicial review is not an appeal from a decision
but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of
judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair
treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority
reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. When an inquiry
is conducted on the charges of 8 AIR 1963 SC 779 9 (1995) 6 SCC 749
misconduct by a public servant, the Court or Tribunal would be
concerned only to the extent of determining whether the inquiry was
held by a competent officer or whether the rules of natural justice and
statutory rules were complied with.

11. In Om Kumar & Others vs. Union of India this Court had also after
considering the Wednesbury Principles and the doctrine of
proportionality held that the question of quantum of punishment in
disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority, and the
jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or
of the Administrative Tribunals is limited and is confined to the
applicability of one or the other of the well-known principles known as
"Wednesbury Principles" namely whether the order was contrary to
law, or whether relevant factors were not considered, or whether

Page 26 of 31
// 27 //

irrelevant factors were considered or whether the decision was one
which no reasonable person could have taken.

12. Again, a three-judge Bench in case of Deputy General Manager
(Appellate Authority) & Ors. vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava 10 (2001) 2
SCC 386 11 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. vs. Wednesbury
Corporation circumscribing the power of judicial review by the
constitutional courts held as under:

"24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the
constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making
process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure
fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion.
The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held
against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with
the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules
prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or
finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no
evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no
reasonable person would have ever reached or where the
conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by
the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent
error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a
writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of
judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of
correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a
matter of fact.
25. xxxxxxx
26. xxxxxxx
27.xxxxxxxx
28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of
judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the
Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact
arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a
case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence
to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man
acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at
those findings and so long as there is some evidence to
support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental
authority, the same has to be sustained."

13. In view of the afore-stated legal position, we are of the opinion that
the Division Bench of the High Court had rightly set aside the order
passed by the Single Bench, which had wrongly interfered with the
order of removal passed by the respondent authorities against the
petitioner. The petitioner having been found to have committed gross
Page 27 of 31
// 28 //

misconduct right at the threshold of entering into disciplined force like
CISF, and the respondent authorities having passed the order of his
removal from service after following due process of law and without
actuated by malafides, the court is not inclined to exercise its limited
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

14. In that view of the matter the SLP is dismissed."

This case however confirms the decision of the Competent Authority

involving suppression of information. A proceeding was initiated against

the delinquent for his involvement in gross misconduct and indiscipline

undertaking a disciplinary proceeding exercise. Therefore, the Petitioner

also appears to have to accepted his mistake. Finally the Hon'ble apex

Court upheld the decision of the Authority for gross misconduct and

suppression of material facts.

13. After glance of the above decisions, this Court here finds, it is true

that the position on the outcome in case of suppression of material facts

or misreport of actual facts and concealment of necessary requirement

can be a reason to take away the service of the Petitioner. Even in spite of

such judgment, this Court here finds a glaring distinction in between the

decisions relied upon by both the Parties and the case at hand appears to

be an order of removal, vide Annexure-2 was issued simply at the stage

of verification of character and antecedent of the recruited Sepoy, the

Petitioner. Since there was already an appointment based on an interview

in a regular vacancy, this Court here finds the offer of appointment at

Annexure-1 reads as follows :-
Page 28 of 31
// 29 //

"Sub.:- Appointment of Sepoys.

You have been provisionally selected by the Selection
Board of Sepoys recruitment test held from 16-11-2001 onwards
at OSAP 3rd Bn. Koraput for appointment as Sepoy in O.S.A.T.
3rd Bn. Koraput temporarily.
Your appointment is subject to medical fitness and
verification of character and antecedents. In case any irregularity
is found in the above connection or any other criteria of your
selection, your candidature for appointment as Sepoy will be
cancelled.

You are therefore instructed to appear before the
undersigned on 23-1-2002 during office hours with the following
documents in original. On the event of your appointment, you
have to stay in this Battalion barrack and you have to deposit
mess advance of Rs.1000/- after appointment. You have to bring
your own bedding and utensils for your personal use. You will be
provided only bachelor accommodation in the barrack. No family
member will be accommodated. Within a week of your
appointment you will have to proceed to the training centre for
Basic training for nine months.
No T.A./D.A. will be allowed for your journey to this
unit for the above purpose.
DOCUMENTS
1. Educational Qualification Certificate.
2. Caste Certificate.
3. Sports Certificate.
4. Employment Exchange Card.
5. Conduct Certificate.
6. Passport size photograph (two nos).
Sd./-Commandant,
OSAP, 3rd Bn. Koraput."

The offer of appointment clearly discloses that the appointment

therein was subject to medical fitness and verification of character and

antecedents.

Page 29 of 31
// 30 //

14. In the above situation, this Court finds, in the event there was

contingency in not continuing the Petitioner in service upon verification

of the character and antecedent finding material against him, a bare

minimum show cause notice should have been issued to the Petitioner

and only after giving opportunity of show cause based on concrete

material itself a decision as appropriate could have been taken.

However, it is a case involving detection of the suppression of

material facts on involvement of the delinquent in criminal cases in the

process of verification of documents on the ground of concealment of fact

of criminal cases, the impugned order at Annexure-2 appears to have

been passed strictly in terms of the conditions in the offer of appointment.

Further for the undisputed non-disclosure of pendency of large number of

criminal cases, no opportunity would have helped the Petitioner.

15. Considering the prospect of giving further opportunity to the

Petitioner, if to yield any outcome in favour of the Petitioner, this Court

here observes, for the detailed discussion in Sub-Paragraph-14, on

detection of four criminal cases pending against the Petitioner at the time

of consideration of the case of the Petitioner further even at the time of

offer of appointment, there is clear suppression as well as

misrepresentation of the actual facts not only in the verification report but

at all stages taking place in the meantime. For the settled position of law

Page 30 of 31
// 31 //

narrated through the above decisions, this Court finds, in the ultimate a

dismissal order was bound to come. For the settled position of law and for

the Petitioner not disputing his involvement in four criminal cases

pending at the time of submitting Application for recruitment as well as

Verification Roll, the Writ Petition is bound to fail. In the circumstance,

this Court declines to entertain the Writ Petition, which is dismissed

accordingly. No costs.

...............................

(Biswanath Rath, J.) Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 27th January, 2023/M.K.Rout, A.R.-cum-Sr.Secy.

Page 31 of 31

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court