JUDGMENT 1. - All the above writ petitions involve identical questions of law relating to the concealment of fact while applying for the post in regard to their involvement in the criminal proceedings in various courts and, therefore, are being decided together. 1. Facts of S.B.C.W.NO. 6977/97 Sitaram Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2. The petitioner had appeared for selection to the post of Constable, but has been refused appointment on the ground that a criminal case was pending in the court for the offences 323 and 324 I.P.C. It is stated that-the parties had already compromised in the criminal case on 7.12.1994 and he had been acquitted as per copy of the judgment Annexure-4 and prays that in case he has been selected and is on merit list, he should be offered the appointment. The case falls under the jurisdiction of S.P. Baran. 3. It is stated in the written statement that the petitioner had suppressed the information in column No. 17 of the application form, copy of the application has also been attached as Annexure R/1 to the written statement. The column states (1) whether the applicant has been ever connected with any criminal case and if yes, the details of the criminal case and also (2) whether the applicant has been convicted or arrested. It is stated that the petitioner had deliberately put cross 'X' mark against this column and on investigation/ verification, it was found that the petitioner was involved in case No. 113/92 of Police Station Sarola and thus the petitioner had not been given the appointment for the reason that the case was pending against him in the case (sic court ?) of CJM Khanpur and that he had deliberately supressed the material facts. 2. Facts of S.B.C.W.NO.1805/98 Veer Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 4. The case relates to the Dholpur District. In pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.9.1997 for the post of Constable in Rajasthan Police, 99 posts were advertised to be filled-up. The petitioner was one of the applicant. He was issued admission card for written examination under Rule 1129 on 30.11.1997. It is stated that he was declared successful out of the category of Scheduled Tribe candidates, as per order dated 20.12.1997. He appeared in out-door examination and is said to have been declared successful being at Sr.No.4. The petitioner was one of the applicant. He was issued admission card for written examination under Rule 1129 on 30.11.1997. It is stated that he was declared successful out of the category of Scheduled Tribe candidates, as per order dated 20.12.1997. He appeared in out-door examination and is said to have been declared successful being at Sr.No.4. It is stated that the junior persons to the petitioner have been selected and offered appointment, but the petitioner has been ignored. He had come to know that as per police verification, report was sought from the SHO whereby it was reported that he was involved in a case u/s.323 and 341 Indian Penal Code pending in criminal court and challen had been filed. It is stated that he had already been acquitted in the case due to compromise between the parties on 18.1.1997. He made representations, but no reply has been received. The petitioner is aggrieved and prays that he be offered the appointment on the post of Constable. 5. Reply has been filed by the respondents. It is stated that in the application form against Column No. 17, the petitioner was duty bound to fill-up the information correctly. Column related to the fact whether the petitioner was involved in any criminal case and if so details were to be given. The petitioner had deliberately concealed the fact by saying that he was not involved in any criminal case and had answered as 'NIL' in Column No. 17. It is submitted that the petitioner was selected subject to verification of antecedents made by the local police and for the reason that he was involved in the criminal case No. 25/98 and later on exonerated due to compromise between the parties and thus he was rightly denied the appointment. The State relies on a case decided by this court in the case of Shesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2490/97 decided on 10.12.1997) [reported in 1997(1) RLR 263] and Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary & Others Vs. Sushil Kumar (1997 U.J.(SC) 159) . It was a case under section 304 and 324 Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and it was held that it was not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. Sushil Kumar (1997 U.J.(SC) 159) . It was a case under section 304 and 324 Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and it was held that it was not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The State also relies on a case Rakesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4616/95 decided on 19.1.1998) . 6. In the rejoinder it is submitted that in view of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, the petitioner cannot be deemed to be of bad character and, therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained. 3. Facts of S.B.C.W.NO.81/98 Sitaram Baloda Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 7. The case relates to Divisional Security Commission, Western Railway, Jaipur. It is stated that he was selected in the Railway Protection Force in the year 1992 in the recruitment batch No. 25 from Jaipur. He joined his initial training at 2nd Batallion at Gorakhpur in 1996 after completing his training. His service had been terminated by the Commanding Officer, RPF, Gorakhpur. It is stated that a case under section 279, 337, 338 was registered on 8.9.1994 at Police Station Ringus in F.I.R. No. 200/94. After selection he joined for training and during the course of training on verification, it was found that it was by mistake that in column No. 17 of the application form where the details were to be mentioned, the petitioner had shown by mistake Section 379 Indian Penal Code instead of Section 279 Indian Penal Code and without any notice to the petitioner, he was dismissed from service. A report had been made that 379 Indian Penal Code had been mentioned by mistake whereas it should have been 279 Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was convicted under section 279, 337 and 338 Indian Penal Code, but was released under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. It was further ordered by the court that releasing under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act shall not affect his service. The petitioner prays that the order of termination of service dated 20.3.1997 be set aside. It was further ordered by the court that releasing under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act shall not affect his service. The petitioner prays that the order of termination of service dated 20.3.1997 be set aside. He has attached a copy of the order passed by the criminal court whereby he has been ordered to be released under the Probation of Offenders Act In the accident case under section 279 Indian Penal Code. 4. Facts of S.B.C.W.NO. 3677/98 Manohar Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 8. The case relates to the jurisdiction of S.P., Ajmer. He had applied for the written examination conducted on 28.9.1997 on Roll No. 1036 at District Ajmer. He is said to have passed all the interviews, but states that he was involved u/s.323, 324 and 34 Indian Penal Code on account of some quarrel amongst the family members on the basis of which a case was registered, the petitioner was given the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offender Act. It is stated that junior persons have been selected and appointed and the petitioner had been ignored. After the decision of the criminal court, it is stated that he had submitted the judgment to the authorities, but no action had been taken. Prayer has been made that the action of the respondents be set aside and the petitioner be appointed. 9. In the reply it is submitted that 50 posts were advertised, selections were made. The petitioners' name was placed at Sr.No.5 in the category of SC/ST of selected candidates, but he had concealed the fact by filling against Column No. 17 of the application form to the fact whether he was involved in a criminal case or not. He had made a false statement regarding involvement in a criminal case as he had written 'NIL' against the column. For the reason that he had suppressed the information regarding pendency of the criminal case No. 159/91 u/s.147 and 323 Indian Penal Code which was registered in Guda Gaurji Police station wherein he was convicted but had been given the benefit under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and had to pay a penalty of Rs. 1,000/-, his case was rejected by the department for being in violation of Rule 13 of the Police Rules. 5. Facts of S.B.C.W.NO.3493/98 Jai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 10. 1,000/-, his case was rejected by the department for being in violation of Rule 13 of the Police Rules. 5. Facts of S.B.C.W.NO.3493/98 Jai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 10. The present case relates to the jurisdiction of S.P. Western Railway, Ajmer. The petitioner had applied for the post of Constable Driver, Western Railway as per advertisement and had appeared in the examination on 21.12.1997. He is said to have passed the written test and stated that he had also appeared in the interview and was declared passed and put in the merit list at No. 2. However, he had not been allowed to join the duties whereas the persons below on merit had been allowed to join duties. He came to know that he had not been given appointment because of involvement in the criminal case whereby he had been acquitted now on 17.2.1998 (Annexure-1). It is stated that the pendency of the criminal case does not have any relation to appointment on the post of Constable. 11. The criminal case in which the petitioner was involved at the time related to Section 457 and 380 Indian Penal Code as per Annexure-12 attached to the writ petition. 12. Reply has been filed. It is stated that the advertisement was issued on August 1997 and it was held that the petitioner was on the select list being the candidate of Scheduled Caste and was at No. 1. He had deliberately supressed the information being involved in the criminal case as was required by him to fill up in Column 17 of the form wherein instead of giving the details, the petitioner had put the word 'NIL'. On verification, it was found that the petitioner had been involved in the criminal case u/s.457 and 380 Indian Penal Code. His application form has also been attached as Annexure R/1 where it is so mentioned. 6. Facts of S.B.C.W.NO. 1849/98 Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 13. The petitioner Rajendra son of Sardara Ram had applied for the post advertised. A written examination was conducted on 28.9.1997. The petitioner passed the written examination. He appeared in the interview and physical test conducted as per the rules on 15,12.1997. The result was declared immediately thereafter. He was medically examined. He was asked to fill up the verification Corm which contains column regarding criminal case pending against the petitioner. A written examination was conducted on 28.9.1997. The petitioner passed the written examination. He appeared in the interview and physical test conducted as per the rules on 15,12.1997. The result was declared immediately thereafter. He was medically examined. He was asked to fill up the verification Corm which contains column regarding criminal case pending against the petitioner. It is stated that because of some family dispute, the petitioner was involved in a case u/s.323, 324 and 341 Indian Penal Code in December 1996 which ended into compromise on 17.12.1997 and, therefore, against the column of mentioning criminal case, the petitioner had mentioned there is no case pending against him. His candidature was rejected and from 15.3.98 he was not allowed to join his duties. It is stated that the petitioner submitted the order of Judicial Magistrate dated 31.12.1998 by which the petitioner was acquitted of the charge framed against him. 14. A reply has been filed by the respondents. It is admitted that the petitioner was selected from OBC quota. The petitioner was required to state correct information in Column No. 17 as to whether he was involved in any criminal case and if so details were to be given. It is stated that the petitioner had given false information regarding involvement in a criminal case. Despite the fact that the criminal case was pending against him and in view of supression of material information his form was rejected and he was declared unsuitable and was rightly informed on 1.5.1998 vide Annexure R/1 to the effect that his service stands terminated. 7. Facts of S.B.C.W.NO.2839/98 Dilawar Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 15. The petitioner had applied for recruitment on the post of Constable in the Police Department, as per advertisement dated 14.10.1997 for Sriganganagar district. In the present case also it is stated that in column No. 17 of the form, the petitioner had given a false and wrong statement regarding his involvement in any criminal case and instead of giving the details, he had written 'NIL' in all the columns. He had suppressed the fact that a criminal case No. 170 dated 13.12.1994 u/s.341 and 323 Indian Penal Code was pending against him and challan was filed in the court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar which was finally decided on 17.12.1994. He had suppressed the fact that a criminal case No. 170 dated 13.12.1994 u/s.341 and 323 Indian Penal Code was pending against him and challan was filed in the court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar which was finally decided on 17.12.1994. The petitioner had not fulfilled the conditions as required u/s.13 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, therefore, a memorandum was issued to him on 29.4.1995. On verification it was found that because of the reason that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case at the time of filling up the form and had given a wrong information and suppressed the facts and as such was rightly removed vide order dated 31.3.1998 from the select list. 8. Facts of S.B.C.W.NO. 3795/98 Laxman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 16. The petitioner was an Ex-army man having retired from Army on 30.4.1997. He is said to have been held-up in the year 1993 u/s.16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 for possessing three bottles of liquor. He informed his Commander about the excise case. His application was sent to the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh and later on to Superintendent of Police, Sujangarh. In the mean time he had retired. He applied for the post of Warden in Jails Department. It is admitted in pars 7 that after physical fitness and character verification, he was appointed as such by the Inspector General of Police vide order dated 19.12.1997. He had joined the service and was sent for training. He was discharged from service vide order dated 26.5.1998 because of the pendency of criminal case No. 441/93 vide Annexure-9 on the ground that he had concealed the fact of pendency of a criminal case against him. The discharge is said to be based on the instructions dated 1.11.1993 (Annexure-10). 17. In the reply it is stated that the petitioner had concealed the fact at the time of submission of application for the post of Warden and his fact had come to the notice of the respondents on complaint being filed by one Narain Singh son of Mool Singh of village Parwatisar Police Station Salasar and on investigation it was found that the petitioner had concealed this fact. 18. 18. It is nowhere mentioned in the written statement that the petitioner was required to fill up any form containing any column of conviction or being involved in a criminal case. In the present case, the petitioner has also been acquitted of the offence of keeping three bottles of liquor with him. It is also admitted in para 7 that the petitioner was appointed after proper verification of his character. It is nowhere mentioned in the written statement that before making the application, the petitioner was bound to state the fact of his being involved in any criminal case and as such it cannot be said that the petitioner had concealed any fact. In the present case, it has not been shown that any duty was cast on the petitioner in any application form before applying to the said post so as to make him obligatory for him to answer any such querry. The petitioner was in Army at that time and had come on leave in the year 1993. He served the Army right up to 1997 when he had superannuated. Even though the case of the petitioner does not fall under the fact of concealment, but for the reason that the petitioner had been serving the Army even after 4 years of his liquor case, it can (sic cannot ?) be said that there was any intention on the part of the petitioner to make any defrauding statement of concealment. The writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order of discharge Annexure-9 is set aside. 9. Facts of S.B.C.W.NO.3475/98 Amar Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 19. The petitioner had applied for recruitment to the post of Constable Driver for Police department as per advertisement dated 11.8.97/ 16.9.97 for recruitment of 62 posts for Ajmer District. The petitioner being S.T. candidate was placed at serial No. 2 on the merit list in ST category of select list. The petitioner was required to fill up the column No. 17 of the form to the effect whether he was involved in any criminal case or was arrested and was supposed to give details in column No. 17. The petitioner had concealed the fact by mentioning 'NIL' against such column. By suppressing the fact that he was actually involved in criminal case No. 92192 under Section 11 and 341 Indian Penal Code of police station Mahuwa. The petitioner had concealed the fact by mentioning 'NIL' against such column. By suppressing the fact that he was actually involved in criminal case No. 92192 under Section 11 and 341 Indian Penal Code of police station Mahuwa. Even though the petitioner was discharged on the compromise between the parties, on such information having received by department, the Department had not considered him fit to be recruited for the reason that at the time of verification of antecedent by local police, above fact was made known to authorities. It is stated that the petitioner had deliberately concealed the fact. 10. Facts of S.B.C.W.NO.1744/97 Virendra singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 20. The petitioner in response to advertisement No. 4124 dated 16.7.96 had applied for recruitment to the post of Constable in Police force of Jaipur. He was declared successful and was placed at serial No. 157 in the merit list. He was medically examined. His papers were sent for police verification and on verification it was found that the petitioner has concealed the fact by misstating in column No. 17 of the application form of his involvement in any criminal case or having been so arrested. It was found that the FIR No. 232/92 in relation to the offences punishable under Section 307, 323 Indian Penal Code read with Section 11/25 of Arms Act had been registered and was under investigation. A charge sheet was also submitted against the petitioner along with other accused in the court of MJM Kotputli. Even though, the compromise is said to have taken place in-between complainant and accused-persons and the petitioner was acquitted by trial court in regard to offence of Section 11 Indian Penal Code, but the trial in relation to Section 11/25 of Arms Act continued. The petitioner was not offered the appointment on the ground that the petitioner had concealed the fact and had given wrong information against column No. 17 of the Application form. The application form submitted by petitioner has been attached as Annexure R-1, with the written statement. Against column No. 17 the petitioner had categorically stated "NO", that is, that he was never involved in any criminal case before filling of the form. 21. The application form submitted by petitioner has been attached as Annexure R-1, with the written statement. Against column No. 17 the petitioner had categorically stated "NO", that is, that he was never involved in any criminal case before filling of the form. 21. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that in a case where the petitioners have been ultimately acquitted and even if they have not filled-up the column No. 17 properly or had suppressed the information of pendency of a case or involvement in the criminal case. It should not be taken as a circumstance as to deprive the petitioners for being posted as Constables. The petitioners reply on the judgment in the case of Khalid Ahmed Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2052/95 decided on 4.11.1996. It was held by this court that only because of the reason that the petitioner in that case was facing the trial in FIR No. 59/91 which did not involve the misconduct of moral turpitude, that could not have deprived the petitioner to hold the post of Constable. The matter was challenged before the Division Bench and it was held that the conduct of concealment of suppression of fact of involvement in a criminal case especially when he had already been acquitted of those offences, does not disqualify him to be appointed as Police Constable by observing as under: 'In the instant case, Khalid Ahmed respondent did not mention the fact about aforementioned two criminal cases, wherein he was facing trial, in his application form Ann. R.5 in the verification form (Annex.R/6) but since none of the said offences did not (sic) involve any moral turpitude. Therefore, non-mentioning of these facts, in our considered opinion, is not fatal and the same does not disqualify the respondent for his appointment to the post of Constable.' 'In our considered opinion, appellant's conduct of concealment or suppression of the fact of his involvement in criminal cases, especially when he has already been acquitted of those offences, does not disqualify him to be appointed as police constable. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, not committed any illegality, material irregularity or error of jurisdiction and the impugned order does not warrant any interference.' 22. Reliance has also been placed in the case of Sheesh Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, not committed any illegality, material irregularity or error of jurisdiction and the impugned order does not warrant any interference.' 22. Reliance has also been placed in the case of Sheesh Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1467/96 decided on 1.4.1997 wherein the petitioner was facing a trial in case No. 144/93 of which he was acquitted of all the charges for lack of evidence. This court observed as under: 'Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for short 'the rules') which regulates appointments in subordinate police service is relevant for our purpose and it reads as under: "13. Character:-The character of a candidate for direct recruitment must be such as to qualify him for employment in the service. He must produce a certificate of good character from the Principal Academic Officer of the University or College or School in which he was last educated and two such certificates, written not more than six months prior to the date of application, from two responsible persons not connected with his School or Colleges or University and not related to him. Notes-(1) A conviction by a Court of Law need not of itself involve the refusal of a certificate of good character. The circumstances of the conviction should be taken into account and if they involve no moral turpitude or association with crimes of violence or with a movement which has its object to overthrow by violent means a Government as established by law, the mere conviction need not be regarded as a disqualification. (2) Ex-Prisoners, who ............ On a pointed question put to the learned counsel for the respondents, as to whether a mere pendency of a criminal case involving moral turpitude creates a bar for giving appointment under the Rules the learned counsel frankly concedes and in my view rightly so that looking to the language employed in note (1) to rule 13 no such bar is created in giving appointment due to mere pendency of a criminal case. It is true that police service being a disciplined service, the persons getting appointments in the service should not be of a bad charter. It is true that police service being a disciplined service, the persons getting appointments in the service should not be of a bad charter. In the instant case, the petitioner has been denied appointment on the ground that in criminal case No. 12/1990 under Section 341 and 323 Indian Penal Code, he was given admonition under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act and another criminal case No. 144/1993 was pending in the court. Admittedly, criminal case No. 72/1990 does not involving any moral turpitude and granting probation to the petitioner under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act in that case should not be a ground to deny appointment. The second case, no doubt, involves moral turpitude but in that case too, the petitioner has been acquitted. On the date of submitting the application the police had not submitted the charge sheet and as such in the application form, it was not mentioned by the petitioner that such criminal case was pending against him. The respondents in their reply have taken a plea about concealment of the fact about pendency of criminal case 144/ 1993 in the application form but in the communication dated 27.12.1995 (Annexure-5) this is not a ground for denying appointment to the petitioner. Further there is no material on record that on the date on which application was filed by the petitioner, criminal case No. 144/1993 was pending in the court and the petitioner has specifically denied that such case was pending on the date of submitting the application. Otherwise also, when pendency of a criminal case involving moral turpitude by itself is not a ground to debar appointment under the Rules of 1989, the petitioner could not be denied appointment. The matter does not require further examination in detail as admittedly the petitioner has been acquitted in criminal case No. 144/1993.' 23. In the case of Shyam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2465/97 decided on 12.9.1997 , the petitioner had failed to disclose or mention in the application form and the verification roll about the criminal case which was decided much earlier and he was acquitted in the same. In the case of Shyam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2465/97 decided on 12.9.1997 , the petitioner had failed to disclose or mention in the application form and the verification roll about the criminal case which was decided much earlier and he was acquitted in the same. This court held that even though it is required of a police force to be honest in dealings, but the mistake of non-mentioning the pendency can be ignored for the reason that the offence for which the petitioner in the case was being treated do not involve moral turpitude. 24. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of (7) Hardev Sharma, (8) Rajendra Singh and (9) Laxman Singh (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 113/97, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2190/98 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3060/98 respectively) decided on 3.2.1999. The petitioner Hardev Sharma in that case was involved in a case in FIR No. 100/94, had concealed this fact in the form in Column No. 17. Similarly Rajendra Singh, petitioner, was also convicted for keeping the peace and good behaviour for a period of two years. He also concealed this fact in Column No. 17 of the form and Laxman Singh petitioner was acquitted on July 10, 1996, he also did not mention in Column 17 of the form that he was involved in a criminal case. The writ petition of Hardev Sharma was dismissed for concealing the facts of being involved in a criminal case whereas in regard to other writ petitioners Rajendra Singh and Laxman Singh it was mentioned that they were not involved in the criminal case on the date of application, as they stood already acquitted, relying on the case of Matadeen Garg Vs. State of Rajasthan (Civil Appeal No. 2719 of 1991) arising out of SLP (C) No. 15234 of 1988 decided on 12.7.1991, it was held that every case will have to be examined from the view point that there was intentional concealment of information or it was only by inadvertance. 25. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Shyam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2539/98 decided on 9.11.1998 where the similar facts that the person was acquitted, the court had held that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as Constable. 25. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Shyam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2539/98 decided on 9.11.1998 where the similar facts that the person was acquitted, the court had held that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as Constable. 26. In the case of Matadeen Garg Vs. State of Rajasthan & another (supra) the recommendations of selections were withdrawn by the High Court in regard to Matadeen Garg on the ground that he had concealed certain particulars which he ought to have disclosed in his application form. The particulars related to the fact whether at any time he had figured as an accused or a complainant in any case. It was later on discovered that he had figured as an accused in a criminal case and the High Court had declined to find him suitable for being offered the order of appointment. The Hon'ble Court held that one will have to examine whether there was an intentional concealment of information or it was by inadvertance. It was found that the premise of Mr. Garg for storing the food grains were used by another person who was also a co-accused. Both were acquitted in the year 1979. Mr. Garg had applied for the post in the year 1986. It was held that it was a stale matter and in such a situation it was found that there was no intentional supression of information. 27. In the case of Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary & Ors. (supra), one Sushil Kumar was provisionally selected as a Constable, however, on verification it was found that his antecedents were such that his appointment to the post of Constable was not found desirable. His name was rejected. Aggrieved by the proceedings culminated in cancelling the provisional selection, he approached the Administrative Tribunal. His application was allowed on the ground that since he had been acquitted of the offence punishable u/s.304, 324 and 34 Indian Penal Code, Delhi Administration filed a civil appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the verification of the character is an important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. The Supreme Court held that the verification of the character is an important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. It was held that even though he had been discharged or acquitted of the criminal case, the same has nothing to do with the question and what is relevant is the conduct or character of a Constable to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. The Supreme Court observed as under: 'The Tribunal in the impugned order allowed the application on the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 Indian Penal Code, under Section 324 read with 34 Indian Penal Code and under Section 324 Indian Penal Code, he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post under the State. The question is: Whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law ? It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was physically found fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointment authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing Authority, therefore, has rightly focused this aspect and found him not desirable to appoint him to the service.' 28. Only because of the reason that a Constable has been acquitted ultimately, may not become a justified ground for offering him the post of Constable. Each case is to be decided on its own facts. 29. In Sitaram Vs. Appointing Authority, therefore, has rightly focused this aspect and found him not desirable to appoint him to the service.' 28. Only because of the reason that a Constable has been acquitted ultimately, may not become a justified ground for offering him the post of Constable. Each case is to be decided on its own facts. 29. In Sitaram Vs. State S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6977/97 , the petitioner states in para 3 that he had informed the respondents about the compromise having been taken place between the parties under section 323/324 Indian Penal Code. The fact remains that he had not disclosed the fact in the application form in Column N.17 of his being involved as an accused. It cannot be said that it was not deliberate concealment. By not providing the correct information under Column 17 of the form, it shall amount to as good as incomplete form. A deliberate attempt has been made by the petitioner to conceal the fact. It is the duty of the applicant specially in disciplinary force to state the facts clearly. But no person can be deprived of appearance in the examination or test only because of the reason of pendency of a criminal case. Had he mentioned this fact in the relevant Column, the competent authority was still duty bound to allow him to appear in the examination and test subject to other conditions of eligibility and if after such mentioning of fact and selection, a candidate is ultimately acquitted, he can claim a right to be appointed, if selected, subject to other antecedents of character. There is no dearth of examples where the persons are falsely named in the FIR's and in such situation, if ultimately a person is discharged or acquitted, he can claim that selection be implemented but he has no right to conceal the fact of his involvement in any criminal case, if it is so required by the recruiting agency. 30. Had the petitioner filled the forms properly and if not called for interview etc. only because of the reason of pendency of criminal case, he would have just cause for challenging the same. 30. Had the petitioner filled the forms properly and if not called for interview etc. only because of the reason of pendency of criminal case, he would have just cause for challenging the same. It cannot be said that the concealment was not deliberate and thus is the competent authority on verification found later on that the petitioner was involved as an accused or complainant in a criminal case, but has failed to mention the fact in the application form in the column providing for such information, no illegality is committed by the competent authority for not appointment him on the ground of concealment of a material fact. The police official is to act fairly and truthfully. The case of the petitioner is of such a nature that it can not be termed under clause of 'stale' incidents. 31. The write petition needs dismissal. 32. For the reasons mentioned above in the case of Sita Ram Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6977/97 , the cases of Veer Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1805/98 , Manohar Lal Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3677/98 , Jai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3493/98 , Dilawar Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2839/98 , and Rajendra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1849/98 , Amar Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3475/98 , and Virendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1744/97 are dismissed with no orders as to costs. 33. However, Civil Writ Petition No. 81/98 Sita Ram Baloda Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , is accepted and allowed. In this case the petitioner has not concealed any material fact and had filled up Column No. 17 properly. However, by mistake instead of writing Section 279, he had mentioned Section 379 in Column 17 whereas it is admitted fact that he was involved in an accident case under section 279, 337 and 338 in the FIR No. 200/94 in which case he was released under Probation of Offenders Act. It is settled law that the release under Probation of Offenders Act cannot be considered to be dis-qualification. It is settled law that the release under Probation of Offenders Act cannot be considered to be dis-qualification. It was a case of accident but the petitioner had not concealed any material fact. 34. The writ petition is allowed with the direction that the respondents shall offer the appointment to the petitioner if he is on select list and is on merit within two months. He will be paid the emoluments from the date of this order and shall not be entitled to any back wages, but his service shall be deemed to be continued from the date when any person junior to him on the list was appointed.The writ petition No. 81/98 Sita Ram Baloda Vs. State & Ors. and 3795/98 Laxman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. are allowed whereas all other writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition Nos. 81 and 3795/98 Allowed All Other Petition Dismissed. *******