JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. 1. With consent of the parties, writ petition has been heard finally. 2. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the orders dated 15.06.2015. The petitioner was selected on the post of Constable thus, was sent for training. He was rendered ineligible alleging incorrect statement of facts in the affidavit dated 21.10.2014. It is pertaining to arrest in the criminal case and prosecution therein. The petitioner denied arrest in the criminal case or its pendency by submitting an affidavit on 21.10.2014. On the Police verification, the case was found against the petitioner. The selection of the petitioner was thus cancelled. 3. Learned counsel submits that petitioner had disclosed the fact about pendency of the criminal case and arrest therein while submitting attestation form on 11.06.2014. The petitioner had given another affidavit indicating that he has been acquitted in Case No.118/2006 by giving benefit of doubt and in Case No.45/2004, a penalty of Rs.500/- was imposed vide order dated 12.09.2011. Despite the aforesaid affidavit, the petitioner was again asked to submit affidavit. As per instruction, petitioner had given out that no case is pending against him thus, he may be given appointment. On the basis of subsequent affidavit dated 21.10.2014, the petitioner has been rendered ineligible. The act of the respondents is not legal as it cannot be said to be a case of suppression of fact so as to deny appointment after completion of training. 4. Learned counsel for respondents admits that in Para 12 of the attestation form, petitioner had disclosed about the arrest and criminal case against him. As per Para 12(L), petitioner was required to give complete details but had not been furnished by him thus, he was asked to submit affidavit even subsequently. In the subsequent affidavit, petitioner submitted that no case is pending against him and in fact, he was never arrested or penalised. The affidavit aforesaid was false and otherwise contrary to disclosure of fact in Para 12(A), (B) and (L) of the attestation form thus, petitioner was made ineligible for appointment. The court may not interfere in the impugned order accordingly. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This court called for the original record of the petitioner. The court may not interfere in the impugned order accordingly. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This court called for the original record of the petitioner. It is to find out as to whether detail of criminal case was given along with attestation form submitted by the petitioner on 11.06.2014. From the record, it comes out that after selection; the petitioner was directed to submit attestation form requiring certain disclosures. In Para 12, a candidate was required to disclose as to whether he was arrested and about criminal case, if any. The petitioner had answered the questions in affirmation and thereby he had disclosed about his arrest and a criminal case. 6. As per Para 12(L), he was required to give details of the cases. If the original record produced by the respondents is considered then an affidavit exists and is next to the attestation form. The petitioner has given details of two criminal cases, out of which, he was acquitted in one case bearing No.118/2006 vide order dated 13.08.2013 and other case bearing No.45/2004, a penalty of Rs.500/- was imposed vide order dated 12.09.2011. Both the cases were thus decided on or before submission of the attestation form i.e. 11.06.2014. The intention of the petitioner was not to suppress the fact pertaining to criminal case otherwise necessary disclosure would have been made in the attestation form. The original record shows submission of the details of those cases with its result. For ready reference, affidavit submitted by the petitioner along with attestation form is quoted hereunder:" 'kiFk i= lanhi dqekj iq= Jh Hkxoku flag dkysj fuoklh dkysjk dk ckl tkfr tkV ds vkijkf/kd ewyizdj.k la[;k&118@2006 ds ekeyk Fkk 332] 353 ds rgr vkijkf/kd ekeyk ntZ Fkk tks fd 13-08-2013 dks vij U;kf;d eftLVs~V ds }kjk Hkk0na0la0 ds vijk/k ds vkjksi esa lansg dk ykHk iznku djrs gq, nks"keqDr ?kksf"kr fd;k x;kA o vkijkf/kd ewy izdj.k la[;k 45@2004 ds ekeyk Fkk] 451] 342] 323@34 ds vijk/k ds vkjksi esa vfUre QSlyk nsrs gq, 12-09-2011 dks vfHk;kstd O;; ds :i esa 500 :i;s vfHk;kstu O;; dk;Zokgh [kpZ ds :i esa vnk djus ds vkns'k Qjek;s x;sA uksV%& lanhi dqekj iq= Jh Hkxoku flag dkysj fuoklh dkysjk dk ckl tkfr tkV ds f[kykQ orZeku esa fdlh Hkh U;k;ky; esa eqdnek ugha py jgk gSA rFkk uk gh fopkjk/khu gSA izkFkhZ 7. The petitioner thereupon submitted another affidavit on 21.10.2014. Therein, it was stated that he was never arrested or prosecuted in the criminal case and at the same time, no penalty was imposed. The affidavit aforesaid was disclosing incorrect facts but said to have been submitted under instruction. In any case, the affidavit so submitted by the petitioner contain incorrect facts but based on subsequent affidavit, can it be considered to be a case of suppression of facts pertaining to criminal cases. The obvious answer would be in favour of the petitioner because in the attestation form, necessary disclosure was made and document enclosed along with it gives details of those cases as well. The respondents denied submission of details of the cases along with the attestation form thus record was called. The original record shows that petitioner had submitted details of the cases along with attestation form. The respondents could not clarify as to why another affidavit was called from the petitioner. 8. Looking to the facts aforesaid, I do not find it to be a case of suppression of facts pertaining to criminal case so as to make the petitioner ineligible for appointment. In the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. U.O.I., reported in JT 2016 (7) SC 300, the issue has been dealt with in detail by the Apex Court. In view of judgment aforesaid also, the case of the petitioner is made out. The candidate making disclosure of criminal cases in the attestation form and giving details of those cases, cannot be held ineligible merely for the reason that subsequent affidavit contains fact otherwise or does not disclose the correct fact. The case of suppression of fact is not made out. It could have been, if no disclosure would have been made in the attestation form. The disclosure of the criminal cases in the attestation form shows bona fide of the petitioner as even after disposal of both the cases much before the attestation form, he had made due disclosures. The impugned orders passed by the respondents cannot be said to be proper and, accordingly, both are set aside. The petitioner would be entitled to the consequential benefits of appointment, if he has successfully completed the training. The intervening period would be considered in continuity but with notional benefit only. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid.