JUDGMENT By the Court—Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri G.C. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel. 2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.7.2006 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner. 3. The appellant was selected for appointment on the post of constable in U.P. Police Services. His verification roll was sent which contained a column as to whether the appellant has been convicted in any criminal case. The said verification roll was answered in negative. A circular dated 6.2.2005 was issued by the directorate of Police Headquarters, Allahabad requiring that after interview and medical test, all the selected candidates shall be required to file a public notary affidavit in the prescribed proforma as finalised by the Selection Committee. The said affidavit was filed by the appellant on 30.4.2005. A copy of which has been brought on the record alongwith the supplementary affidavit. One of the column in the affidavit was as to whether any criminal case was registered or any police investigation was pending. There was other informations mentioned in the affidavit. After filling the said information, the affidavit was filed by the appellant. The appellant was not sent on training after the respondents came to know that a first information report was registered against the appellant being case crime No. 39 of 2002 under Sections 147/148/149/307/504 and 506, I.P.C. which was pending at the time when affidavit was filed. The appellant has placed on the record an order of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge dated 11.8.2005 acquitting the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the affidavit was required to be filed at the time of the medical test and the affidavit was prepared by the Selection Committee itself and the candidates were asked to line up and put their signatures on the affidavit and hand over the same. He further submits that the appellant has given several informations in the affidavit which were not required and on the basis of such affidavit, the appellant has a right to be sent on training. He further submits that verification roll was rightly filled up. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the appellant has rightly not been sent for training on account of concealment of material fact by submitting false affidavit. He further submits that verification roll was rightly filled up. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the appellant has rightly not been sent for training on account of concealment of material fact by submitting false affidavit. He further submits that in the affidavit itself, it has been stated that if any fact is found subsequently untrue, the selection shall be cancelled without any condition. 5. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. The requirement of filing of an affidavit is on the basis of the circular issued by the Police Headquarters. Every candidate who was selected before being appointed and before being sent on training was required to give the relevant informations on a prescribed proforma, with regard to their antecedents and character. Further the purpose was to know as to whether any criminal case was registered or is pending against the candidates who have been selected. Other details were also asked for. From the materials brought on record, it is clear that against the appellant, a first information report was registered in the year, 2002 and at the time when he filed the affidavit, in fact, a criminal trial was pending against him. The appellant, at the time of filing of the affidavit, has not made any disclosure about the criminal trial which was pending against him. Non disclosure of the criminal trial pending against the appellant was a serious matter and on that basis, the appellant was rightly not sent for training. The Apex Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, 2003 (3) SCC 437 , has held that it is not relevant as to what happens in the criminal trial, the relevance is conduct of the candidate and as to suppression of any information. We do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. 6. Similar questions arose before us in Special Appeal No. 1003 of 2006, Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, which we have decided on 6.9.2006. 7. In view of what has been said above and also for the reasons given by us in our earlier judgment dated 6.9.2006 in Arvind Kumar’s case, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed. ———