JUDGMENT : I. Mahanty, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order 27.11.2019 passed by learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of the petitioner-respondent, directing the appellants to issue appointment order to the petitioner-respondent and permitting him to join duties within a period of eight weeks. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Single Judge has wrongly relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Nadeem Khan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4321/2019 decided on 01.05.2019 on the ground that the respondent has failed to disclose correct factual aspects of the criminal cases pending/decided against him in the verification form. He submits that in para 8 of the verification form, the respondent admitted the fact about his conviction but in para 9, the respondent has stated ^^D;k dtZnkj gS vkSj vk;k mlds fo+:} dksbZ QkStnkjh eqdnek ;k nhokuh nkok py jgk gS \ U;k;ky; }kjk nks+"keqDr fd;k^^ . The statement of the respondent amounts to suppression of material fact of conviction suffered by him in criminal case No. 64/2013. Learned counsel vehemently submits that a person who is having three criminal cases decided against him should not be allowed to join the disciplined force. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner submits that the respondent has disclosed the entire information before the competent authority by placing relevant documents. He also submits that the respondent-petitioner comes from a rural background and, therefore, while giving answer in para No. 9 of the verification roll, he could not understand the meaning and he stated that ^^D;k dtZnkj gS vkSj vk;k mlds fo+:} dksbZ QkStnkjh eqdnek ;k nhokuh nkok py jgk gS \ U;k;ky; }kjk nks+"keqDr fd;k^^ as he was acquitted on a payment of fine of Rs. 500/- by giving him benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 500/- by giving him benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. The counsel also submits that vide Annexure 7, the points taken into consideration by the respondent-authority have also taken note of the pendency and decision of the criminal cases registered against the respondent petitioner in the following manner:- ^^1- eq-ua- 64@13 /kkjk 379 vkbZihlh tks eksVjlkbZfdy pksjh dk gS] ftlesa fd'kksj U;k;ky; cksM ukxkSj }kjk fnukad 16-08-2014 dks tqekZuk 500 :i;s ls nks"kfl) djrs gq, fd'kksj U;k; vf/k- dh /kkjk 19 dk ykHk fn;k tkdj ;g nks"k fl)h mlds dsfj;j ij fdlh izdkj dk foifjr izHkko ugha MkysxhA 2- eq-ua- 65@13 /kkjk 379 vkbZihlh tks eksVjlkbZfdy pksjh dk gS] ftlesa fd'kksj U;k; cksMZ ukxkSj }kjk fnukad 16-08-2014 }kjk dks 4 ihvks ,DV ds rgr~ 1 o"kZ ds fy;s 10000 :i;s ds tekur eqpyds ij ikcUn djrs gq, fd'kksj U;k; vf/k- dh /kkjk 19 dk ykHk fn;k tkdj ;g nks"k fl)h dsfj;j ij fdlh izdkj dk foifjr izHkko ugha MkysxhA 3- eq-ua- 66@13 /kkjk 379 vkbZihlh tks eksVjlkbZfdy pksjh dk gS] ftlesa ekuuh; fd'kksj U;k; cksMZ ds vkns'k fnukad 19-10-13 }kjk tfj;s jkthukek nks"keqDr fd;k x;kA^* Therefore, it is submitted that the respondent-petitioner has disclosed the entire factual details including the orders passed in criminal cases before the authorities without any suppression. 4. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar. 5. It is noted that while giving the details in the verification roll, the respondent-petitioner has correctly submitted all relevant information. In reply to Question No. 8, 8, ^^vk;k izkFkhZ dHkh fdlh QkStnkjh ekeys esa eqfYte cuk gS ;k dHkh tsy dh ltk ikbZ gS\- the respondent stated ^^gk^^ but while giving answer to Question No. 9 ^^D;k dtZnkj gS vkSj vk;k mlds fo+:} dksbZ QkStnkjh eqdnek ;k nhokuh nkok py jgk gS^^ the respondent stated ^^U;k;ky; }kjk nks+"keqDr fd;k^^ The answer to question No. 8 in the form shows that he had no intention to suppress any information about the decision in his case but while giving answer to question No. 9, he has taken into consideration that since he was given benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act by penalizing him with a fine of Rs. 500/-, it was presumed by the respondent to be a decision of acquittal. 500/-, it was presumed by the respondent to be a decision of acquittal. We are of the view that the respondent comes from rural background of the State of Rajasthan presumed that he has been acquitted by the court by giving him benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act while maintaining the reply to question No. 8 in affirmative, therefore, it cannot be assumed that the respondent had any intention to suppress any fact about the criminal cases. It is also admitted that entire details of the case along with the orders were placed before the competent authority. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court there is no suppression made by the respondent in the application form submitted before the competent authority. The judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge is fully applicable in the present case. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being bereft of merit and judgment dated 27.11.2019 passed by learned Single Judge is upheld.