Judgment : Oral Judgment Smt. Ranjana Desai, J. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties taken up for hearing forthwith. 2. The petitioner claims to be an engineering graduate. The 1st respondent is the General Manager of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and the 2nd respondent is the Chief Engineer thereof. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent issued an advertisement for the post of Junior Engineer. The petitioner took the examination for the said post, he passed the written test, he was called for interview, he was successful in the interview and appointment letter dated 21/5/07 was issued to him. 4. After the appointment letter the petitioner filled in the attestation form. Column 10(c) of the attestation form reads thus: "Have you ever been arrested prosecuted kept under detention, or bound down, fired / convicted by Court of Law for any offence or debarred / disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examinations/selections or debarred from taking any examination rusticated by any University or by other educational authority / Institution? 5. Against column 10 (c) the petitioner inserted the word ’Nil’ thus indicating that he was not arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down, fired / convicted by court of law for any offence. 6. Admittedly the petitioner has been charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 498-A and Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. In that connection the petitioner was arrested on 4/4/07 and was released on bail on 9/4/07. The charge-sheet is filed on 4/6/07. About these facts there is no dispute. Attestation form was filled on 2/6/07. 7. The case of the respondents is that if the petitioner was arrested on 4/4/07 in column 10(c) he should have noted that he was arrested on 4/4/07. The attestation form contains a warning that the furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the attestation form would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under Board. Inasmuch as the petitioner has suppressed the fact that he was arrested, though appointment letter was issued to him on 21/5/07 he was not given any intimation as regards where he would be posted pursuant to the appointment letter. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that no posting letter has been issued to him and hence has filed this petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that no posting letter has been issued to him and hence has filed this petition. 8. We have heard at some length, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He submitted that clause 10(c) of the attestation form has been wrongly interpreted. Learned Counsel submitted that the word ’arrest’ cannot be read in isolation. Clause 10(c) has to be read in totality and it is only, if there is a conviction that the petitioner would be bound to state so in column 10(c). Learned counsel further submitted that after appointment letter was issued to the petitioner the respondents did not convey to the petitioner as to why posting letter was not issued to him. Though the petitioner kept visiting office of the respondents no information was supplied to him. He was informed about the reason why posting letter was not issued to him by Jagruti Manch a Non Governmental Organisation. Learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioner wrote letter dated 1/4/08 to the respondents giving the background in which criminal case is registered against him. He requested in the said letter that in view of the peculiar circumstances a posting order may be issued to him. Learned counsel pointed out that there is no response to this letter. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secy. Deptt. of Home Secy., A.P. & Ors. v. B. Chinnam Naidu, (2005) 2 SCC 746 , in support of his submission that merely because in the attestation form the petitioner has not disclosed that he was arrested he cannot be denied a posting order. 9. We have also heard Ms. Baxi, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. She has taken us to the affidavit-in-reply of one Sadadeo R. Panikar, Assistant Manager of the 1st respondent. Learned counsel submitted that inasmuch as the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts posting order has rightly not been issued to him. 10. Admittedly the petitioner was arrested on 4/4/07 in connection with an offence under Section 498-A and 406 of the I.P.C. and was released on bail on 9/4/07 and was charge-sheeted on 4/6/07. Appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 21/5/07 and attestation form was filed by the petitioner on 2/6/07. 10. Admittedly the petitioner was arrested on 4/4/07 in connection with an offence under Section 498-A and 406 of the I.P.C. and was released on bail on 9/4/07 and was charge-sheeted on 4/6/07. Appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 21/5/07 and attestation form was filed by the petitioner on 2/6/07. The attestation form contains the following warning: "WARNING - The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under Board." 11. Undoubtedly, therefore, it was obligatory on the petitioner to give correct information to the respondents. We have already quoted column 10(c). Since the petitioner was arrested on 4/4/07 i.e. prior to the date on which he filled the attestation form, he ought to have stated in that column that he was arrested on 4/4/07. He avoided to do so. In our opinion this amounts to suppression of material facts. 12. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in Secy. Deptt. Of Home Secy., A.P.’s case (supra) is wholly misplaced. Column 12 of the attestation form in that case materially differs from Column 10(c) of the attestation form in the instant case. Column 12 therein required the petitioner to indicate whether he was convicted by a court of law whereas in the instant case he was required to state whether he was arrested in connection with any case. 13. It is also pertinent to note that in that case the Supreme Court observed that "the object of requiring information in various columns like column 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." These observations of the Supreme Court are clearly attracted to the facts of this case. Since the material information is suppressed and false statement is made in the form, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the respondents ought to have issued posting order to him. We see no merit in the petition. Petition is, therefore, dismissed.