Order : (SUDESH BANSAL, J.) 1. Though, the writ petition has been listed in the ‘Orders’ category, however, since pleadings are complete, hence, with consent of counsel for both parties, writ petition has been heard finally on merits. 2. In the instant writ petition, petitioner raised an issue of not granting appointment to him on the post of Constable (GD) pursuant to vacancies advertised on 29.10.2021, despite of declaring successful in written and physical test, merely on account of non-disclosure about the criminal case arising out FIR No.05/2020 under Section 380 IPC. In this respect, an order dated 24.04.2023 (Ann-9) was passed from the office of DGP Recruitment. 3. The submission of counsel for petitioner is that petitioner cannot be held guilty for concealment, since the factum and facts of his criminal case have been disclosed by the petitioner in the detailed application form submitted at the time of document verification dated 22.11.2022 (Ann-8). Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been given benefit of probation, hence, as per Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, same cannot be treated as ineligibility for appointment, however, the nature of offence is not heinous or serious nor of moral turpitude. Thus, learned counsel submits that petitioner was wrongly declared ineligible for grant of appointment. 4. It has transpired that during course of writ petition, the Committee of respondent-Selection Board itself has re-considered the case of petitioner for grant of appointment as evinced by letter dated 11.12.2023 written by the Board. The copy of the letter dated 11.12.2023 has been placed on record as Annexure-A/1 by petitioner along with an application. A perusal of the letter dated 11.12.2023 demonstrates that the petitioner has been held eligible by the Selection Board and his name was recommended for appointment subject to disposal of the writ petition. The copy of the letter dated 11.12.2023 has been placed on record as Annexure-A/1 by petitioner along with an application. A perusal of the letter dated 11.12.2023 demonstrates that the petitioner has been held eligible by the Selection Board and his name was recommended for appointment subject to disposal of the writ petition. For ready reference, the relevant portion letter dated 11.12.2023 is being reproduced hereunder:- ^^fo"k;kUrxZr ,oa izklafxd i= ds lanHkZ esa fuosnu gS fd dkWULVscy HkrhZ 2021 esa vkids ftys ls p;fur fdUrq vkijkf/kd izdj.k esa fyIrrk ds dkj.k fu;qfDr ls oafpr vH;FkhZ Jh iou dqekj eh.kk iq= Jh izHkqjke eh.kk] jksy ua- 604261558 ds izdj.k dk iqfyl eq[;ky; Lrj ij xfBr foHkkxh; lfefr }kjk fnukad 06-12-2023 dks iqu% ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA ijh{k.kksijkUr lfefr us fuEukuqlkj vuq'ka"kk dh gS] ftldk egkfuns'kd iqfyl] jktLFkku }kjk vuqeksnu fd;k x;k gS& 1- vH;FkhZ ds izdj.k dk iqu% ijh{k.k djus ij ;g ik;k x;k fd vH;FkhZ us p;u mijkUr Hkjok;s x;s] ?kks"k.kk izi= ,oa osfjfQds'ku jksy esa vkijkf/kd izdj.k dk mYys[k fd;k gS] ftlls fofnr gS fd fu;qfDr ls iwoZ gh vH;FkhZ }kjk vkijkf/kd izdj.k esa fyIrrk ds rF;ksa ls foHkkx dks voxr djk;k x;k gSA 2- vH;FkhZ ds fo:) ntZ vkijkf/kd izdj.k la[;k 05@2020 esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 08-07-2022 dks fu.kZ; ikfjr dj vH;FkhZ dks /kkjk 12 ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dk ykHk iznku fd;k gS] ftlds vuqlkj ;g nksf"kflf) muds Hkfo";@oS/k jkstxkj dks izHkkfor ugh djsxh o dksbZ fu;ksZX;rk xfBr ugha djsxhA 3- vH;FkhZ jkT; ljdkj ds ifji= ?ekad i&1¼1½ dkfeZd@d&2@2016 iii fnukad 04-12-2019 ds fcUnq la[;k 2 (iii) ds rgr fu;qfDr gsrq ik= gSA vr% vH;FkhZ }kjk fu;qfDr gsrq nk;j ,lch flfoy fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 7452@2023 ds fuLrkj.k mijkUr fu;ekuqlkj leLr vkSipkfjrk,s iw.kZ djus ij fu;qfDr iznku djus dh dk;Zokgh dj bl dk;kZy; ,oa fof/k vuqHkkx] iqfyl eq[;ky; t;iqj dks voxr djkosaA^^ Thus, it has been prayed that petitioner is entitle to get appointment order and joining pursuant to letter of Board dated11.12.2023. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, does not dispute the issuance of letter dated 11.12.2023 by the Selection Board as also the eligibility of petitioner to be fit for joining on the post of Constable (GD) pursuant to his final selection on merits, is also undisputed fact, but his only objection is that vacant post of Constable (GD) against the vacancies advertised on 29.10.2021 is not available. 6. 6. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand and in view of the letter dated 11.12.2023 passed by the Recruitment Board of the respondents, this Court is of considered opinion that the erstwhile order dated 24.04.2023 (Ann-9) holding the petitioner as ineligible on account of concealment of the factum of criminal case stands annulled and superseded, as much as petitioner has been found eligible for appointment on merits and recommended for giving appointment by the Recruitment Board. 7. There is nothing on record from the side of respondents to circumscribe the verbal submission of learned counsel for respondent that the vacant post of Constable (GD) to grant appointment to the petitioner is not available, rather on the contrary, counsel for petitioner has pointed out that on the similar set of facts, another candidate Mr. Bhupendra Singh Gurjar has been given appointment against the same vacancies following the recommendation of Recruitment Board of same dated i.e. 11.12.2023. This fact has not been rebutted by the respondents. Thus, petitioner cannot be made suffer to the hostile discrimination and the verbal objection of learned counsel for respondent is without substance. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent judgment of Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. [ (2024) 5 SCC 264 ] , after relying upon the celebrated judgment passed in case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India [ (2016) 8 SCC 471 ] , has held and observed in para No. 21 as under:- “As would be clear from Avtar Singh (supra), it has been clearly laid down that though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment, he or she has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily. The exercise of power has to be in a reasonable manner with objectivity and having due regard to the facts. In short, the ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria after due consideration of all relevant aspects.” Finally the appointment to the petitioner was ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. As an outcome of the aforesaid discussion, instant writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed in following terms:- Respondents are directed to issue appointment order, allowing to join the petitioner on the post of Constable (GD) in furtherance to the letter/recommendation dated 11.12.2023 of the Recruitment Board, forthwith and preferably within a period of thirty days. 9. As an outcome of the aforesaid discussion, instant writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed in following terms:- Respondents are directed to issue appointment order, allowing to join the petitioner on the post of Constable (GD) in furtherance to the letter/recommendation dated 11.12.2023 of the Recruitment Board, forthwith and preferably within a period of thirty days. However, it is made clear that petitioner shall be entitled for actual monetary benefits and seniority from the date of joining his service. 10. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.