Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant writ petition has been filed against order dated 10.11.2003 (Annexure-7) whereby candidature of petitioner has been rejected after his selection by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (“PSC”) for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Gr. II (“APP”) on the premises that he suppressed material information while not disclosing it in his application form (Annexure R-1) so also in attestation form (Annexure R-2), about criminal case registered against him for offence punishable under Section 3/6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 (“the Act”), wherein he was convicted but was released on probation for one year with direction to deposit Rs. 200/-as prosecution expenses. 2. Admitted facts, in brief , are that post of APP Gr. II, was advertised by RPSC, pursuant to which petitioner being LL.B, qualified and eligible, applied for consideration of his candidature and participated in process of selection, and qualified written examination and interview and was informed vide letter (Annexure-3) that his name finds place at S. No. M-52 and was forwarded by PSC to Respondent No. 2. At this stage when his case was sent for police verification, Respondent No. 2 was informed that petitioner was convicted in Cr. Case No. 973/99 under Section 3/6 of the Act after regular trial wherein statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded and his statement was recorded under Section 313, CrPC where he pleaded guilty and did not produce any evidence in defence and consequently convicted of criminal offence charged (Supra). This fact of conviction was suppressed by him, by not disclosing in his application form filled seeking appointment for the post of APP Gr. II so also in attestation form. Thus, his very selection was cancelled vide order dated 10.11.2003 (Annexure-8). Hence, this petition. 3. This fact of conviction was suppressed by him, by not disclosing in his application form filled seeking appointment for the post of APP Gr. II so also in attestation form. Thus, his very selection was cancelled vide order dated 10.11.2003 (Annexure-8). Hence, this petition. 3. Counsel for petitioner vehemently contends that petitioner pleaded guilty for the reason that Presiding Officer assured him that his conviction will not cause any prejudice for his future career in Government service as would be evident from Judgment dated 20.04.2001 (Annexure-9) and in such circumstances, he remained under bona fide impression that since it will not come in his way while seeking appointment in Government, he did not consider proper to mention these facts in the application so also attestation form and that being so, it cannot be said to be a case of suppression of material information and accordingly, denial of appointment on this premise despite his final selection is arbitrary and also in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Counsel further urged that conviction for minor offence under Section 3/6 of the Act and so also mere imposition of fine upon the petitioner will not construe to be an act of moral turpitude which deprives him in seeking appointment on the post of APP. In support of his contentions, Counsel placed reliance upon decisions in (1) Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, JT 1996 (5) SC 155, and (2) Secy. Department of Home vs. B. Chinnam Naidu, JT 2005 (2) SC 358. 5. Respondents in their reply to writ petition averred that appointment of petitioner has been withheld for justified reason because despite conviction for offence under Section 3/6 of the Act, for which learned trial Judge keeping in view his age at relevant time considered proper not to send him behind the bars and granted probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, he failed to state these material facts and information in his application form (Annexure R-1) in Col. 13(a) where specifically asked for as to whether incumbent is convicted, removed or black-listed and if yes, to state particulars in details whereof , where he did not disclose impugned information and merely put cross marks against Col. 13; and even after his selection when he was required to fill attestation form especially its Col. 13(a) where specifically asked for as to whether incumbent is convicted, removed or black-listed and if yes, to state particulars in details whereof , where he did not disclose impugned information and merely put cross marks against Col. 13; and even after his selection when he was required to fill attestation form especially its Col. 12 where he was called upon to show as to whether he was ever convicted by Court or any officer, and if answer is yes, full particulars of conviction and sentence was to be given, but again petitioner specifically mention “No” against Col. 12 (Annexure R-2). According to respondents, in view of aforesaid information, it was a case of deliberate suppressing material facts, which tantamounts to act of moral turpitude on the part of petitioner dis-entitling him to seek appointment in question and thereby no error was committed by respondents, in rejecting his selection vide impugned order (Supra). 6. I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. It remains undisputed that for imputation of charge that while appearing in University Examination in LL.M (Pt. I) on 12.08.1999, Centre Superintendent alongwith Invigilator when checked petitioner, it was revealed that he was holding answer-sheet of some other student, which was seized from his possession and was sent to the authority and because he was found involved in unfair means, criminal case was registered for offence punishable under Section 3/6 of the Act where initially he denied charges and pleaded for trial. However, after statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded petitioner admitted his guilt during recording of his statement under Section 313, CrPC wherein prosecution evidence was accepted by him and he did not lead any evidence in defence. That being so, after taking note of material on record, trial Court held him guilty and convicted him for offence charged under Section 3/6 of the Act, but looking to his age of 24 years, granted benefit of probation. Col. 13 of application form (Annexure R-1) and Col. That being so, after taking note of material on record, trial Court held him guilty and convicted him for offence charged under Section 3/6 of the Act, but looking to his age of 24 years, granted benefit of probation. Col. 13 of application form (Annexure R-1) and Col. 12 of attestation form (Annexure R-2) read as under:- Þ13- ¼d½ D;k vkidks nf.Mr] inP; qr ;k CySd fyLV fd;k x;k gS \ ;fn , slk gS rks og /kkjk ftlds vUrxZr nf .Mr fd;k x;k vkSj tks n.M fn;k x;k mls of .kZr djsA ¼[k½ D;k vkidks vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr ijh{kkvksa p;uksa ls dHkh fooftZr (Debar) fd;k x;k gS\ ;fn gka] rks fooj.k fy[ks & ¼[k½ ijh{kk dk uke o"kZ footZr dk dkj.k “12. Have you ever been convicted by Court or any officer ? “No” If the answer is yes, full particulars of the convictions and sentences be given.” 7. Aforesaid fact of his conviction was not disclosed by petitioner in application as well as attestation form (Annexures R-1 and R-2), which according to respondents is suppression of material information in Col. 13 of application (Annexure R-1) where he put cross mark and in Col. 12 of attestation sheet (Annexure R-2) where he answered saying “No”, instead of disclosing material fact of his conviction in question, despite there being specific declaration given by him in application form (Annexure R-1) which categorically declares that in case of information furnished in the application form found false, without affording opportunity of hearing, his participation could be cancelled by PSC. This declaration signed by petitioner, himself , has not been disputed. 8. However, contention urged by Counsel for petitioner is that since it was mentioned in the order of his conviction (Annexure-9) that his conviction and release on probation will not affect his future career, that being so, this fact could not have been disclosed by him. In my opinion, whatever has been observed or referred to by trial Judge in the order of conviction has no co-relation ship with information sought to be disclosed by incumbent in the application form or attestation, non-disclosure of fact regarding conviction in criminal case cannot be presumed to be bona fide act particularly when material information was sought for. 9. In Dharampal Singh vs. State, 2000 (2) WLC Raj. 9. In Dharampal Singh vs. State, 2000 (2) WLC Raj. 400, Full Bench of this Court at Para 14 observed as under:-“In this view, suppression of material information or furnishing it wrongly in column No. 17 of the form is a vital factor, which goes against the candidate. Rule 15 of the Rules empowers the authority to deny appointment or debar such candidate for admission to any examination or appearance at any interview either permanently or for specified period”. 10. After taking note of catena of decisions, Full Bench observed at Para 26 as under:- “26. In the light of the facts stated and the discussion made above, we answer the questions 1 to 3 aforementioned as follows:- 1. That a candidate was prosecuted or subjected to investigation on a criminal charge is a material fact, suppression of which would entitle an employer to deny employment to a candidate on that ground. 2. That ultimate acquittal of a candidate, who was prosecuted on a criminal charge, would not condone or wash out the consequences of suppression of the fact that he was prosecuted. 3. That suppression of material fact would itself dis-entitle a candidate from being appointed in service.” 11. As regards decision cited by Counsel for petitioner in Secy. Deptt of Home vs. B. Chinnam Naidu (Supra), it was a case where there was no specific requirement to mention as to whether any case is pending and that being so Apex Court observed as under:- “Since, there was no specific requirement to mention as to whether any case is pending or whether the applicant had been arrested, the respondent cannot be termed to be guilty of any suppression and having been selected after necessary tests cannot be denied the appointment.” Even in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Ramaratan Yadav, JT 2003 (2) SC 256, Apex Court observed as under:-“... 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. 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.” (Emphasis laid) 12. So far as Judgment in Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana (Supra), is concerned, Apex Court was examining the effect of conviction under Section 294, IPC in relation to employment and it was not a case of non-disclosure of material information as is in instant case. 13. Applying the law enunciated by Apex Court and Full Bench of this Court to facts situation of instant case where in my opinion It is a clear case of making out suppression of material information while not disclosing, especially when asked for in Col. 13 of application (Annexure R-1) and in Col. 12 of attestation form (Annexure R-2), and suppression of material information about conviction for criminal charge, itself , dis-entitles the petitioner from being appointed in service. I find no error in the impugned decision of respondents denying appointment to the petitioner. 14. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.