JUDGMENT 1. - This is an intra court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of Writ Petition No.2470 of 2008 under Rule 134 of Rajasthan High court Rules against an order dated 16.04.2008 passed by Single Judge in aforementioned writ petition. 2. Facts of the case are these: 3. The appellant (writ petitioner) had applied for the post of constable pursuant to the advertisement issued by the State. In the form that, every candidate was required to fill, there was a column. This column required every candidate to mention as to whether candidate was involved in any criminal case and if so its details. The column read as under: " 12 (i) ( d ) D;k vki dHkh fxjQ~rkj fd, x;s gSA gkWa@ugha ( [k ) D;k vki ij dHkh vfHk;ksx yxk;k tkrk gSA gkWa@ugha ( x ) D;k vki dHkh fgjklr esa jgs gSaA gkWa@ugha ( ?k ) D;k dHkh vkidh tekur gqbZ gSA gkWa@ugha ( M ) + D;k dHkh fdlh U;k;ky; }kjk vki ij tqekZuk gqvk gSA gkWa@ugha ( N ) D;k vki dHkh fdlh fo'ofo|ky; vFkok fdlh vU; 'kS{kf.kd izkf/kdkjh@laLFkku }kjk fdlh ijh{kk ls oftZr fd, x;s gS] vk;ksX; Bgjk;s x;s gSaA gkWa@ugha ( t ) D;k vki dHkh fdlh jsy lsok vk;ksx }kjk lfpoky; ijh{kk esa izeq[k laLFkku }kjk fdlh ijh{kk izoj.k esa oftZr fd, x, gS@v;ksX; Bgjk;s x;s gSA gkWa@ugha ( > ) D;k bl lka[;kadu izi= dks Hkjrs le; vkids fo:) fdlh U;k;ky; esa dksbZ vfHk;ksx py jgk gSA gkWa@ugha ( y ) D;k ;g lka[;kdau izi= Hkjrs le; vkids fo:) fdlh fo'ofo|ky; esa vFkok fdlh vU; 'kS{kf.kd izkf/kdj.k@laLFkku esa dksbZ dkjZokbZ py jgh gSA gkWa@ugha (ii) ;fn mi;qZDr fdlh iz'u dk mRrj gkWa gS rks bl izi= dks Hkjrs le; dk;Zokgh@fxjQ~rkjh@fgjklr@ tqekZuk@nks"k@ltk@'kkfLr vkfn vkSj U;k;ky;@fo'ofo|ky;@'kS{kf.kd izkf/kdj.k vkfn esa py jgs ekeys dk iwjk C;kSjk nhft,A 4. It is not in dispute that though appellant was involved in one criminal case and was also prosecuted by criminal court, he did not fill this column which remained unfilled /blank. In other words, he did not disclose the fact of his involvement in criminal case nor did he mention its details in the column. He was thus declared ineligible. 5. The appellant therefore felt aggrieved and filed the writ petition out of which this appeal arises. In other words, he did not disclose the fact of his involvement in criminal case nor did he mention its details in the column. He was thus declared ineligible. 5. The appellant therefore felt aggrieved and filed the writ petition out of which this appeal arises. The learned Single Judge (writ court) dismissed the writ petition and upheld the stand of the State that has now given rise to filing of this appeal by the writ petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in this appeal. 7. This is what the writ court held: "By an order dated 2.4.2008 the Assistant Security Commissioner cum Principal, Railway Protection Force Training Center, Bandikui declared the petitioner ineligible to be appointed as Constable in view of the submission of false statement. Pertinent to note that in an application form for recruitment, on asking as to whether the petitioner was ever prosecuted for any criminal charge a negative reply was given by the petitioner. On verification of character the respondents came to know about a criminal prosecution of the petitioner though that ultimately resulted in his acquittal. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that merely on the count that the petitioner faced prosecution, the appointment could have not been denied to him, specially in the circumstances that he was acquitted from the charges alleged. I do not find any substance in the argument so advanced as it is not the case of denying appointment on the count of facing a criminal prosecution, but for the reasons that a false statement was made by the petitioner in the application form for recruitment. I have perused the form as supplied by learned counsel for the petitioner, though not placed on record and from perusal thereof it reveals that by a positive action the petitioner answered that he never faced any prosecution. The statement is apparently false, and therefore, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly." 8. In our opinion, the writ court appears to be right in its reasoning and conclusion. It is not in dispute that the appellant did not mention any details of the criminal case that he suffered. It is also not in dispute that he did not fill this column that remained blank. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly." 8. In our opinion, the writ court appears to be right in its reasoning and conclusion. It is not in dispute that the appellant did not mention any details of the criminal case that he suffered. It is also not in dispute that he did not fill this column that remained blank. It is also not in dispute that appellant did suffer the criminal case and the same was within his knowledge. 9. In our opinion, therefore, it was a case where, appellants form could be said to be either incomplete or defective in nature or it was a case where appellant (candidate) for the reasons best known withheld the information sought perhaps under the apprehension that if the required information is supplied, then his candidature may be rejected. In either case, his candidature (form) was liable to be rejected on the ground that he did not give/mention the details of the crime and the case that he suffered in criminal court in the aforesaid column though he was aware of it. 10. It is not the case of the appellant that the information obtained by the State in relation to his criminal case was false or that he was not involved in any criminal case. Rather he candidly admitted when brought to his notice and also in these proceedings that the information obtained by the State regarding his involvement in criminal case was correct. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, contended that non-mentioning could be due to myriad reasons and hence it could be ignored. We do not agree to this submission. If the requirement of the form was not met and desired information was not supplied, such form cannot be said to confirm its all requirements. It is incomplete in nature and hence liable to be rejected as being defective. It was, thus, rightly rejected by the State on receipt of the information and writ court rightly upheld such rejection. 12. The view that we have taken is fully supported by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India ( civil appeal no 9913 of 2010 arising out of S.L.P. No (c) 16989 of 2006 ) . 12. The view that we have taken is fully supported by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India ( civil appeal no 9913 of 2010 arising out of S.L.P. No (c) 16989 of 2006 ) . It is in this case, the learned judge Raveendran J speaking for the bench on similar facts dismissed the appeal filed by the candidate who too had not disclosed his criminal antecedents though otherwise in his knowledge in the form and interalia held that such non disclosure disentitle the candidate to secure an employment in States services. His lordship took note of entire case law on the subject and then explaining its ratio dismissed the appeal. 13. In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal is found to be devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******