JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This petition has been filed questioning the order passed by the respondents denying the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor in subject Extension Education on the ground that petitioner suppressed pendency of criminal trial against him in pursuance of the FIR No. 147/2020 under Sections 406 & 498A IPC. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the petition that pursuant to the advertisement dated 13/4/2022 issued by the respondent University for the post of Assistant Professor, the petitioner applied for the said post in the subject Extension Education. In the application form filled by the petitioner (Annex. 2), in the column, whereby, the petitioner was asked 'Is there any court case/police case pending against you? If so, give details.', the petitioner marked "No". 3. After undergoing the recruitment procedure as prescribed in the advertisement, by order dated 18/5/2022, on the recommendation of the Statutory Selection Committee meeting and interview, the petitioner was accorded appointment as Assistant Professor, Extension Education. In the order, it was inter alia indicated that the appointment is subject to antecedents verification. 4. It is submitted that on account of the appointment order dated 18/5/2022 (Annex. 3), the petitioner, who was working as Manager with the Bank of Baroda, submitted his resignation, which was accepted on 21/6/2022 (Annex. 4). It is then stated in the petition that in the police verification held qua the petitioner (Annex. 5), it was disclosed that an FIR No. 147/2020 was lodged against him under Section 406 and 498A IPC, wherein, trial was pending against the petitioner, on which account apparently, the petitioner was not permitted to join and, therefore, the petitioner sent an email (Annex. 6) to the respondents to permit him to join pursuant to the order of appointment dated 18/5/2022. Based on the above facts the prayer as noticed has been made. 5. A reply to the writ petition has been filed along with an order dated 30/6/2022 (Annex. R/2/1), wherein, the Committee constituted for the purpose, recommended that as the petitioner had concealed the facts while submitting his application form to the University, which is violation of the terms and conditions of filling the application form and as per the terms and conditions mentioned in his appointment order, he cannot be allowed to join, therefore, action may be taken accordingly. Based on which, by order dated 5/7/2022 (Annex. Based on which, by order dated 5/7/2022 (Annex. R/2/2), the order of appointment dated 18/5/2022 issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled with immediate effect. 6. Further submissions have been made in the reply that as the petitioner had concealed the fact of pendency of criminal case in his application form, which fact came to light only by way of police verification, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief from the Court and in terms of the advertisement, application form and the order of appointment, the orders have been passed cancelling the appointment of the petitioner, which do not require any interference. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions that the petitioner had mistakenly and unintentionally not mentioned the details of the pending court case or the police case registered against him because he was under the impression that the case lodged against him is a family matter, which was not required to be disclosed. 8. Further submissions have been made that based on the appointment accorded to the petitioner, the petitioner has resigned from his service with Bank of Baroda and in case he is not accorded appointment by the respondents, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss inasmuch as based on the order of appointment the petitioner having resigned from a permanent job, he would be now rendered unemployed, therefore, on that count also the orders (Annex. R/2/1 & R/2/2) filed by the respondents along with reply deserve to be quashed and set aside. 9. Further submissions have been made that mere pendency of the case against the petitioner cannot be a reason enough to deny appointment to the petitioner and on that count also the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. Reliance has been placed on Mukesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan: (2016) 2 RLW (Raj.) 915, Mahendra Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19152/2018 decided on 11/2/2019 and Ashu Kumar v. State of Rajasthan: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5034/2008 decided on 27/9/2008. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner is baseless as suppression of the pending criminal case is apparent and that in terms of the terms & conditions of the advertisement and the order according appointment to the petitioner, the action of the respondents cannot be faulted. 12. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner is baseless as suppression of the pending criminal case is apparent and that in terms of the terms & conditions of the advertisement and the order according appointment to the petitioner, the action of the respondents cannot be faulted. 12. Submissions have been made that on account of deliberate suppression of pendency of criminal case, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 13. Reliance has been placed on Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Anr. v. Anil Kanwariya: (2021) 10 SCC 136 . 14. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 15. A bare perusal of the application form filled by the petitioner (Annex. 2) reveals that in column 15.b. a specific question was put as to whether any court case/police case was pending against the applicant and details were sought, to which the petitioner gave the answer "No". The said question was not qualified in any manner for the petitioner to claim that he was under the impression that as the case lodged against him is a family matter, he was not required to disclose it. 16. The advertisement (Annex. 1) under the general conditions and instructions inter alia provided as under: "10. A candidate, who knowingly or willfully furnishes incorrect or false particulars or suppresses material information, will be disqualified and, if appointed, will be liable to dismissal from service without prior notice." 17. The application form inter alia contained the following declaration from the petitioner: "Declaration I certify that the above information is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed/distorted. If at any time, it is found that any information is false, concealed, distorted then my appointment shall be liable to summarily termination without any notice/compensation & criminal case may be initiated against me under the relevant provision of Indian Penal Code and other laws as applicable." 18. Further, the order of appointment also contained a specific stipulation under the terms and conditions, wherein, clause 6.C. inter alia provided as under: "C. The appointment is subjected to Antecedents verification. Further, the order of appointment also contained a specific stipulation under the terms and conditions, wherein, clause 6.C. inter alia provided as under: "C. The appointment is subjected to Antecedents verification. He/she must submit the Police verification Certificate issued by Department of Police, failing which and in case of adverse findings, he/she shall not be allowed to join and his/her appointment will be terminated without any notice." 19. From the above stipulations, it is apparent that on the part of the respondent University, it was emphasized and re-emphasized that if a candidate knowingly or intentionally furnishes incorrect or false particulars or suppresses material information, he will be disqualified and even if appointed, will be liable to dismissal from service without notice. 20. The petitioner in his declaration in the application form, where he had indicated "No" regarding pendency of the criminal case, had indicated that information was correct and compete and nothing has been concealed or distorted and further indicated that if at any time it is found that any information is false, concealed or distorted then his appointment would be liable to be summarily terminated without any notice/compensation and criminal case may be initiated against him. 21. Whereafter, the order of appointment dated 18/5/2022 (Annex. 5) was subject to antecedents verification and it was required of the petitioner to submit the police verification certificate, wherein, in case of adverse finding he shall not be allowed to join and his appointment would be terminated without any notice. 22. The specious plea taken by the petitioner that he did not disclose the information by mistake and unintentionally is essentially of no consequence whatsoever. 23. It is not in dispute in light of the police verification report (Annex. 5) that with regard to FIR no. 147/2020 lodged with Mahila Thana, Kota City under Sections 406 & 498A IPC trial was pending against the petitioner, which aspect was material and was suppressed by the petitioner. 24. The respondents by order dated 5/7/2022 (Annex. R/2/2), passed during the pendency of the writ petition, based on the recommendation of the Committee constituted for the purpose (Annex. R/2/1), which considered the concealment and came to the conclusion that the same was in violation of the terms and conditions of the application form and the order of appointment, opined taking of action against the petitioner, cancelled the appointment of the petitioner. 25. R/2/1), which considered the concealment and came to the conclusion that the same was in violation of the terms and conditions of the application form and the order of appointment, opined taking of action against the petitioner, cancelled the appointment of the petitioner. 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kanwariya (supra), even in a case of trivial nature of offence involved, inter alia came to the following conclusion: "14. The issue/question may be considered from another angle, from the employer's point of view. The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment, i.e., while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST. Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and as observed hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right. 15. In view of the aforestated facts and circumstances of the case, both, the learned Division Bench as well as the learned Single Judge have clearly erred in quashing and setting aside the order of termination terminating the services of the respondent on the ground of having obtained an appointment by suppressing material fact and filing a false declaration. The order of reinstatement is wholly untenable and unjustified." 26. In State of Rajasthan & Ors. The order of reinstatement is wholly untenable and unjustified." 26. In State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Chetan Jeff, a case pertaining to the post of Constable, again the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the judgment in the case of Anil Kanwariya (supra) inter alia observed as under: "25. The question is not whether the offences were trivial in nature or not. The question is one of suppression of material fact by the original writ petitioner in respect of his criminal antecedents and making a false statement in the application form. If in the beginning itself, he has suppressed the material fact in respect to his criminal antecedents and in fact made an incorrect statement, how can he be appointed as a constable. How can he be trusted thereafter in future? How it is expected that thereafter he will perform his duty honestly and with integrity? 26. Therefore, as such the authorities were justified in rejecting the candidature of the respondent for the post of constable." 27. So far as the judgments on which the learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance are concerned, in none of the cases, the issue of suppression of pendency of criminal case was involved and as such the same are of no avail to the petitioner. 28. So far as the fact that the petitioner has resigned from the service of Bank of Baroda is concerned, the same itself cannot obliterate the implication of suppression made by him in the application form pertaining to the pendency of criminal case and the petitioner cannot escape the consequences of his own wrong on account of his resignation. Issue would have been different, in case the petitioner had disclosed the pendency of the case and, thereafter, on account of according of the appointment by the University, he had resigned. 29. From the above, it is apparent that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the pendency of criminal case against him in the application and in view of specific stipulations made in the advertisement and order of appointment along with the declaration made by the petitioner in the application form coupled with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Anil Kanwariya (supra) & Chetan Jeff (supra) the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 30. In view of the above discussion, no case for interference is made out. 30. In view of the above discussion, no case for interference is made out. The petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.