http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1014 of 2005

PETITIONER: Secy. Deptt. of Home Secy.A.P. & Ors.                                                    

RESPONDENT: B. Chinnam Naidu                                                 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/02/2005

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2269 of 2004  

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Leave granted.

       Challenge in this appeal is to legality of the judgment of a  Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court  setting aside the  order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short  the ’Tribunal’) and holding that authorities were not justified in  denying appointment to the respondent.

       A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice:

       The respondent appeared for the recruitment test conducted for  the selection of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (Civil) in  Visakhapatnam. He was successful  in the test and thereafter he was  subjected  to medical test.  After the two tests were over, he was  required to undergo training. But he was not sent for training on the  ground that the Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam  by order dated  5.5.2003 had directed that he was not to be sent for training.   Questioning legality of such order, the respondent filed an Original  Application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the  examination for selection was conducted on 16.3.2003.  Subsequently, he  underwent the physical test and was successful. By order dated  28.4.2003 the Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam informed the  respondent about his selection and directed him to report at the  District Police Office at Visakhapatnam for further medical test.  He  was also directed to carry with him uniforms and other items necessary  for training which was organized at Central Police Lines, Amberpet.   Though, the respondent was subjected to medical examination he was not  allowed to join the training programme.  He was informed that since he  had been arrested in crime No. 28/2000 on the file of Police Station,  Kukatpally, registered under various provisions of the Indian Penal  Code, 1860 (in short the ’IPC’) and Andhra Pradesh Public Examination  Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means Act, 1997 he was not  eligible to be appointed. Before the Tribunal the respondent took the  stand that since he had not been charged and had not been convicted and  since he had no connection with the crime, the order of the  Superintendent of Police was not tenable.  His further stand was that  the case was registered in respect of the earlier recruitment test in  the year 2000 and there was no reason to debar him since there was no  conviction, and, therefore, the action of the authority is not proper.  The present appellants filed counter-affidavit stating that before  final verification the respondent was permitted to appear in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

examination and the tests.  Subsequently, it was noticed that the  respondent herein was arrested on 16.1.2000 and was sent to judicial  custody in the case referred to above.  That case was under  investigation and Forensic Science Laboratory report was awaited.  The  applicant while submitting Attestation Form after completion of written  examination did not mention about his arrest and the pending case which  he was required to do.  Since he had suppressed the truth in terms of  the instructions laid down in Declaration at Cl. No. 3, the respondent  had incurred disqualification and he was not a fit person for  employment under the Government.  The Tribunal noted that against Col.  No. 12 of the Attestation Form, the respondent had not mentioned about  the pending case and had not even indicated about his arrest.  This  amounted to suppression of truth in the Attestation Form and  Declaration at column No.3.  Therefore, in terms of the instructions he  had incurred disqualification and was unfit for employment under the  Government.  The Tribunal held that the respondent was not a person of  good conduct and character since he had suppressed material information  while filling up the Attestation Form.  He did not deserve any relief.   Accordingly the Original Application was dismissed.           The matter was challenged before the Andhra Pradesh High Court  and by the impugned judgment it was held that there was no requirement  under Column No. 12 to mention about any pending case or arrest and,  therefore, the action of the authorities, in not permitting the  respondent to join the training, cannot be sustained.   

In support of the appeal the learned counsel appearing on behalf  of the appellants submitted that the Tribunal had correctly held that  the respondent was guilty of suppression of material facts and taking  into consideration the conduct and character the Tribunal had rightly  held that he was not entitled to any relief, and High Court should not  have interfered with the order.  Reference was made to some cases where  this Court has held that giving of incorrect reply and suppressing  material facts while filling up the Application Form or Attestation  Form or Declaration disentitles the candidate for any relief.  Particular reference was made to the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya  Sangathan & Ors. Vs.  Ram Ratan  Yadav [2003 (3) SCC 437].

In response, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted  that there was no requirement to mention about the arrest or the  pending case, therefore, High Court’s order is perfectly justified.  

In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan’s case (supra) the factual  position can be ascertained from paragraphs 8 and 9 which read as  follows:  "8.- The Attestation Form dated 26.6.1998 duly  filled in by the respondent and attestation  show that the respondent has taken BA degree  from St. Aloysius College, JBP and Bed and Med  degrees from R. Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, JBP.   Columns 12 and 13 as filled up read thus:  

"12.- Have you ever been prosecuted/kept under  detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a  court of law of any offence?  - No."

"13.- Is any case pending against you in any  court of law at the time of filling up this  Attestation Form?- No."

"9.- The respondent has also certified the  information given in the said Attestation Form  as under:  

"I certify that the foregoing information is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

correct and complete to the best of my  knowledge and belief.  I am not aware of any  circumstances which might impair my fitness for  employment under Government."

As is noted in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan’s case (supra) the object  of requiring information in various columns like Column No. 12 of the  Attestation Form and 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. When a candidate  suppresses material information and/or gives false information he  cannot claim any right for appointment or continuance in service.   There can be no dispute to this position in law. But on the facts of  the case it cannot be said that the respondent had made false  declaration or had suppressed material information.  

       In order to appreciate the rival submissions it is necessary to  take note of Column No. 12 of the Attestation Form and Column No.3 of  the declaration. The relevant portions are quoted below:  

"Column No.12- Have you ever been convicted by a  court of law or detained under any State/Central  preventive detention laws for any offence whether  such conviction sustained in court of appeal or  set aside by the appellate court if appealed  against."

"Column No.3- I am fully aware that furnishing of  false information or suppression of any actual  information in the Attestation Form would be a  disqualification and is likely to render me unfit  for employment under the Government."          A bare perusal of the extracted portions show that the candidate  is required to indicate as to whether he has ever been convicted by a  court of law or detained under any State/Central preventive detention  laws for any offences whether such conviction is sustained or set aside  by the appellate court, if appealed against. The candidate is not  required to indicate as to whether he had been arrested in any case or  as to whether any case was pending.  Conviction by a court or detention  under any State/Central Preventive Detention Laws is different from  arrest in any case or pendency of a case.  By answering that the  respondent had not been convicted or detained under Preventive  Detention Laws it cannot be said that he had suppressed any material  fact or had furnished any false information or suppressed any  information in the Attestation Form to incur disqualification. The  State Government and the Tribunal appeared to have proceeded on the  basis that the respondent ought to have indicated the fact of arrest or  pendency of the case, though column No. 12 of the Attestation Form did  not require such information being furnished.  The learned counsel for  the appellants submitted that such a requirement has to be read into an  Attestation Form.  We find no reason to accept such contention. There  was no specific requirement to mention as to whether any case is  pending or whether the applicant had been arrested. In view of the  specific language so far as Column No. 12 is concerned the respondent  cannot be found guilty of any suppression.   

In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan’s case (supra), the position was  the reverse.  There the candidate took the stand that as there was no  conviction, his negative answers to columns 12 to 13 were not wrong.   This Court did not accept the stand that requirement was conviction and  not prosecution in view of the information required under columns 12  and 13 as quoted above.  The requirement was "prosecution" and not  "conviction".  The logic has application here.  The requirement in the  present case is "conviction" and not "prosecution".

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

The question whether he was a desirable person to be appointed in  Government service was not the subject matter of adjudication and the  Tribunal was not justified in recording any finding in that regard.   Whether a person is fit to be appointed or not is a matter within the  special domain of the Government. For denying somebody appointment  after he is selected, though he has no right to be appointed, has to be  governed by some statutory provisions.  That was not the issue which  was to be adjudicated in the present case.  The only issue related to  suppression of facts or mis-declaration.    

In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in this appeal which  is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.