ORDER : MUKESH RAJPUPROHIT, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been directed by the petitioner against the order dated 06.05.2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short “learned Tribunal”) dismissing the OA filed by the petitioner and declining to interfere in the order dated 15.02.2019, whereby the petitioner’s representation for compassionate appointment in place of his father was rejected. 2. The facts which are relevant for deciding present petition, are that petitioner’s father was retired on medical ground and the compassionate ground. The petitioner was required to fill the Attestation Form, wherein, in response to a specific question in column No.11(f) that “Have you ever been convicted by a court of law for any offence”, he answered “No”. At column No.11(k) regarding particular/information of conviction and penalties, he mentioned that criminal case No.141/2008 arising out of FIR No.37/2008 was there but the same was dismissed due to the compromise arrived at between the parties. However, the Collector and District Magistrate, Ajmer informed about the offence under Section 336 of the I.P.C. stating that petitioner was released in the criminal prosecution registered against him after “admonition”. Accordingly, the petitioner vide order dated 25.07.2016 was informed that his case for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that he suppressed the fact about conviction while filling up attestation form. The petitioner challenged the order dated 25.07.2016 by filing Original Application No. 291/783/2016, which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 13.12.2018 with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. The petitioner’s representation was accordingly considered and rejected vide order dated 15.02.2019. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed another OA No.291/133/2019, which was contested by the respondents by way of filing reply. The learned tribunal, after hearing the parties, has passed the order dated 06.05.2021 dismissing the OA filed by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not intentionally concealed any information in the attestation form because in Column No. 11(k), he duly mentioned that criminal case No. 141/2008 arising out of FIR No. 37/2008 was there but the same was dismissed due to compromise between the parties. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not intentionally concealed any information in the attestation form because in Column No. 11(k), he duly mentioned that criminal case No. 141/2008 arising out of FIR No. 37/2008 was there but the same was dismissed due to compromise between the parties. He has further submitted that in column No.11(f), the petitioner inadvertently and unfortunately marked answer “No”. The said unfortunate mistake taken place because the petitioner being a layman was not aware of intricacies of law and legal terminology as he thought that he stood acquitted in the criminal case, hence, he bonafidely marked “No” against said column. He has also submitted that in spite of specific directions of the learned tribunal and the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh’s case, his representation has been wrongly rejected by the respondents. He has, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may be allowed. 5. Per contra, Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Devesh Yadav appearing on behalf of the respondents has supported the order impugned passed by the learned tribunal and submitted that the petitioner intentionally suppressed material fact while mentioning “No” in the column No.11(f) of the Attestation Form and thus, concealed information with regard to his conviction by the Courts of law. Column No.11(f) of the Attestation Form says that “Have you ever been convicted by a Court of law for any offence” and the petitioner answered “No” and thereby, suppressed the fact that he had been convicted for the offence of 336 I.P.C. but was released by extending benefit of Section 3 of the Act of 1958. While drawing attention towards the condition/warning mentioned in the Attestation Form, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that giving false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form is a disqualification and rendered the petitioner unfit for employment under the Government. The petitioner was given opportunity for personal hearing by the competent authority in pursuance to the earlier directions issued by learned Tribunal and after giving due opportunity of personal hearing and keeping the facts available on record and considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Case and reviewing the matter in detail, representation of the petitioner was rightly rejected. He has, therefore, prayed that writ petition of the petitioner may be rejected. 6. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the material available on record. 7. The facts in this case are not in dispute and the issue for one’s consideration is that what was desired to be disclosed in the Attestation Form and the information disclosed in the Attestation Form could be treated as a suppression of fact that disentitles the applicant from seeking employment. A perusal of the Attestation Form which is placed along with this writ petition as Annexure-2 clearly reveals that a specific warning has been given therein, which is reproduced as under :- “The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government.” The information given by the petitioner in the attestation form has also been verified by him, which reads thus : “I certify that the forgoing information is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am not aware to any circumstance which might impair my fitness for employment under Government.” 8. Thus, it is clear that in spite of a specific warning mentioned in the attestation form, the petitioner gave false information in Column No. 11(f) of the attestation form and suppressed information with regard to his conviction by the Courts of law. Therefore, the appointment/selection of the petitioner on compassionate ground was cancelled on the ground of concealment of material facts and giving false information regarding criminal case in the Attestation Form and not on the ground of criminal case. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), has observed in Para 32 of the judgment as under :- “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 be itself lead to termination of his service 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 service 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.” 10. A perusal of the order impugned would show that learned tribunal after due appreciation of material has come to the conclusion that the respondents after due consideration of the material and the judgement rendered in the case of Avtar Singh as also DOPT OM and the Railway Board’s Circular on the subject, rejected the representation of the petitioner. In our opinion, there is no error committed by the learned tribunal, which warrants interference by this Court. 11. In view of the discussions made above, writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merit and same is hereby dismissed.No order as to costs. 12. All pending application(s) also stands disposed of.