JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.9.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 3131/1998 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed and thus his claim that he should have been appointed on the post of Constable in spite of suppression of the material information regarding pendency of several criminal cases against him and he should still have been held eligible for appointment, did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge wherein it was contended on behalf of the petitioner/appellant that he was illegally denied selection on the post of 1 Constable although he had cleared written test and the interview test. 3. The petitioner/appellant had filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge merely stating that although he had cleared the written test and the physical verification test and was found suitable for appointment in all other aspects, he was wrongly denied the appointment. When a show cause 1 notice was issued on this averment of the petitioner/appellant, a reply came to be filed by the respondents, wherein it was disclosed that on the date when the suitability of the candidates was adjudged, it could be detected that at least three criminal cases were pending against the petitioner which is involved offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 336, 353, 325, 307 and 186 IPC. The form which had been filled by the appellant clearly noted a column to be filled by the applicant as to whether there was any criminal case pending against the applicant. The applicant/appellant herein had left the column blank and did not disclose that there were several criminal cases pending against him but finally when the authorities detected this' fact, the applicant was found guilty of suppression of material information from the appointing authorities regarding the pendency of criminal cases against him and therefore, he was not found eligible to be granted appointment on the post of Constable. 4. Assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it was submitted by the counsel for the appellant that although criminal cases were pending against the appellant on the date of selection, he was finally acquitted of the charges at a later stage, i.e., after several years of the selection. 4. Assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it was submitted by the counsel for the appellant that although criminal cases were pending against the appellant on the date of selection, he was finally acquitted of the charges at a later stage, i.e., after several years of the selection. Even if that be correct, the fact remains that the petitioner/appellant cannot be held to be absolved of the lacuna that he was guilty of suppressing 3 the material fact from the appointing authorities. The disqualification which came in the way of the appellant was that he was an accused in the criminal case but the adverse material against him was to the effect that he did not disclose the pendency of the criminal cases pending against him in spite of the fact that there was a specific column in that regard which was to be filled by the applicant. Thus the charge of suppression of material fact from the appointing authorities was fully established and therefore, it is not open for the appellant to urge that he was wrongly denied the appointment. Besides this, we have noticed that when the petitioner filed the writ petition, then at that stage also he had not disclosed in the writ petition that he had been denied appointment on this ground. 5. We are not prepared to accept the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not aware as to why he had been denied appointment and he came to know about this fact only when the counter affidavit was filed by the respondents. The appellant has obviously tried to pose an innocent picture in this regard. The appellant was clearly guilty of suppression of material fact not merely from the appointing authorities but also when he had filed the writ petition and therefore, indulged in this mis-demeanour at two stages. 6. The process of selection was in regard to the advertisement which was issued in the year 1997 and the appointment procedure was completed way back in the year 1998. 6. The process of selection was in regard to the advertisement which was issued in the year 1997 and the appointment procedure was completed way back in the year 1998. The fact that the appellant was acquitted of the charges after several years of the completion of the process of appointment at a stage when no vacancies were left to be filled, then mere acquittal of the appellant from the criminal cases cannot be a ground to contend that he should be granted appointment at a later stage after he was acquitted of the charges. Under the aforesaid circumstance, we further deem it appropriate to highlight the fact that the denial of appointment to the appellant was not on account of pendency of the criminal cases but the same was on account of suppression of material fact from the appointing authorities which is still existing even on date which is clear from the facts recorded hereinbefore.We thus, find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and hence, we dismiss this appeal at the admission stage itself.Appeal Dismissed in Limine. *******