JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the order dated 05.07.2019, passed by the Chairman/Upper Sachiv, U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow, holding that petitioner has a criminal case registered against him and hence he is not eligible for being appointed on the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC and that only persons who are upright with clear/clean record can only be appointed on the said post. 2. Brief facts are that the petitioner applied on 19.02.2018 for the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC in pursuance of an advertisement published by U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow in the year 2018. In the said advertisement 41,000 vacancies were advertised for the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC. Along with the necessary documents, the petitioner also submitted an affidavit declaring that one N.C.R. case is pending against him. The petitioner qualified Written Examination held on 18.06.2018 as well as the physical test held on 11.12.2018. Subsequently, his medical test was conducted and therein he was declared fit for selection to the advertised post. A merit list of the successful candidates was prepared and the petitioner's name appeared on serial No. 2378. However, the respondent No. 2 by its order dated 05.07.2019, cancelled the petitioner's selection to the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC, on the ground that the petitioner has concealed a pending criminal case bearing Crime No. 39 of 2013 registered under Section 323/504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is in violation of a Government Order dated 28.04.1958. As per Para 3 of the G.O. dated 28.04.1958, candidates involved in offences involving moral turpitude and violence against State should not be recommended for selection. 3. The petitioner submitted his reply and explained to the respondents about the pendency of the criminal case, that he had already declared about the criminal case in the affidavit which he submitted along with the application form. He further submitted that he did not know the particulars of the case registered against him as he has not yet been issued any summons by the court concerned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order stating that he has not concealed the pending criminal case while filling up the application form. The criminal case is registered by the neighbour of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order stating that he has not concealed the pending criminal case while filling up the application form. The criminal case is registered by the neighbour of the petitioner. Furthermore, in the said case only minor Sections of I.P.C. i.e. Sections 323, and 504 are involved which are trivial in nature and hence accordingly, filing of the first information report should not come into the way of the petitioner being appointed to the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC. 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India, 2016 (8) SCC 471 . In the said judgment the Apex Court in para 38 has laid down various aspects for consideration of persons facing criminal trial and issues regarding the person being convicted or acquitted in such trial. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record with their assistance. 8. It is noticed that the petitioner applied for the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC and was duly selected in the said selection process. Even though it was already disclosed by the petitioner at the time of filing of the application form, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him. The case is registered for minor offences under IPC and has been instituted at the instance of a neighbour. The trial has also not concluded to date. 9. Cancellation of the selection of a candidate on the ground that the candidate is involved in a criminal case, should not be done in a mechanical way. The gravity of the offence, the age of the candidate at the time of the commission of the offence, stage of trial, and other relevant aspects must be taken into consideration while deciding on the cancellation of selection by the recruitment/appointing body. This aspect of the matter was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra). The gravity of the offence, the age of the candidate at the time of the commission of the offence, stage of trial, and other relevant aspects must be taken into consideration while deciding on the cancellation of selection by the recruitment/appointing body. This aspect of the matter was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra). It was held as under:- "31.Coming to the question whether an employee on probation can be discharged/refused appointment though he has been acquitted of the charge(s), if his case was not pending when form was filled, in such matters, employer is bound to consider grounds of acquittal and various other aspects, overall conduct of employee including the accusations which have been levelled. If on verification, the antecedents are otherwise also not found good, and in number of cases incumbent is involved then notwithstanding acquittals in a case/cases, it would be open to the employer to form opinion as to fitness on the basis of material on record. In case offence is petty in nature and committed at young age, such as stealing a bread, shouting of slogans or is such which does not involve moral turpitude, cheating, misappropriation, etc. or otherwise not a serious or heinous offence and accused has been acquitted in such a case when verification form is filled, employer may ignore lapse of suppression or submitting false information in appropriate cases on due consideration of various aspects. 32. No doubt about it that once verification form requires certain information to be furnished, declarant is duty-bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false information, may by itself lead to termination of his services or cancellation of candidature in an appropriate case. However, in a criminal case incumbent has not been acquitted and case is pending trial, employer may well be justified in not appointing such an incumbent or in terminating the services as conviction ultimately may render him unsuitable for job and employer is not supposed to wait till outcome of criminal case. In such a case non-disclosure or submitting false information would assume significance and that by itself may be ground for employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services. 33. In such a case non-disclosure or submitting false information would assume significance and that by itself may be ground for employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services. 33. The fraud and misrepresentation vitiates a transaction and in case employment has been obtained on the basis of forged documents, as observed in M. Bhaskaran case [Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 100 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 162 : (1996) 32 ATC 94], it has also been observed in the reference order that if an appointment was procured fraudulently, the incumbent may be terminated without holding any inquiry, however, we add a rider that in case employee is confirmed, holding a civil post and has protection of Article 311(2), due inquiry has to be held before terminating the services. The case of obtaining appointment on the basis of forged documents has the effect on very eligibility of incumbent for the job in question, however, verification of antecedents is different aspect as to his fitness otherwise for the post in question. The fraudulently obtained appointment orders are voidable at the option of employer, however, question has to be determined in the light of the discussion made in this order on impact of suppression or submission of false information. 34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects. 35. Suppression of "material" information presupposes that what is suppressed that "matters" not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases. 36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. 36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects. 37. The "McCarthyism" is antithesis to constitutional goal, chance of reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot be ruled out in toto nor can be generally applied but is one of the factors to be taken into consideration while exercising the power for cancelling candidature or discharging an employee from service. 38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus: 38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. 38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. 38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. 38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted: 38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 38.4.3. 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. 38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. 38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. 38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. 38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. 38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. 38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. 38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him." 10. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. 38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him." 10. This Court has gone through the FIR and is of the considered view that the allegations against the petitioner were trivial in nature, and definitely not serious so as to deny him an appointment on a public post. This Court is of the considered view that respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner in its proper perspective. There is no discussion about the gravity of the alleged offence. The trial has still not concluded even when the offence is minor in nature. Non-consideration of relevant facts itself renders any order illegal and arbitrary. 11. In view of the discussion made above, it is clear that the allegations made against the petitioner in the said criminal case are trivial in nature accordingly the impugned order is not sustainable and is set aside. 12. The impugned order dated 05.07.2019 is set aside, the writ petition is allowed. 13. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to join on the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC as per select list prepared by the respondents, if there is no legal impediment.