JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.12.1999 (Annx. 4) by which the services of the petitioner stood terminated. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the posts of Constable Driver are advertised to be filled up under the provisions of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter called as the Rules) on 24.9.1998. Petitioner applied in response to the said advertisement. He passed the written examination and being successful therein he faced the physical test and was called for interview on 21.10.1999 and in pursuance thereof he was selected as a Constable Driver. Vide impugned order dated 15.12.1999 (Annx. 4) his services stood terminated on the ground that in his application form he had concealed the material fact particularly the fact that he had been involved in a criminal case for the offences punished under Sections 341, 323, 147, 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code. Hence this petition. 3. Admittedly, while filling up the application form, the petitioner did not fill up Column No. 17 which particularly contained the said clause whether the petitioner had ever been involved in a criminal case and if yes to what effect but it is also not disputed that the petitioner has disclosed the factum of his involvement in a criminal case and being acquittal vide judgment and order dated 31.10.1998 (Annex. 3) at the time of interview. Moreso, he furnished the information while filling up the verification form on the next date of interview. Thus, it is a case where petitioner had not furnished the required information at the time of filling up the application form but had definitely furnished the same at the time of interview. Therefore, the only question involved in this case is whether petitioner can be held to have obtained the employment by misrepresentation or fraud and whether such conduct disentitle him for employment. 4. A Full Bench of this Court has considered the issue in detail in Dharam Pal Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2000(2) RLW 815 and held that any employment obtained by misrepresentation or fraud cannot be enforced and if a person has suppressed the material information in the selection process he is not entitled for employment. 5. However, the instant case stands on a different footing. 2000(2) RLW 815 and held that any employment obtained by misrepresentation or fraud cannot be enforced and if a person has suppressed the material information in the selection process he is not entitled for employment. 5. However, the instant case stands on a different footing. If inadvertently, the said information could not be furnished by the petitioner at the time of filling up the application form, he has admittedly disclosed it at the time of interview and also furnished the said information in writing on the next date of interview i.e. before the result was declared. 6. Thus, this case is fully covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Anr. v. Dhaval Singh (1999) 1 SCC 246 wherein in similar circumstances a police constable could not furnish the said information of pendency of criminal case. However, while submitting the verification, attestation form he voluntarily informed the authority concerned about the criminal case against him. In such a case it was held to be not a case of misrepresentation or fraud and candidate cannot be deprived of employment. 7. As the controversy involved in this case is squarely coverted by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhaval Singh (supra), the instant petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.12.1999 (Annx. 4) is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be deemed in continuous service for the purpose of seniority etc. but he shall not be entitled for any backwages. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******