JDUGMENT : (ANAND SHARMA, J.) 1. Petitioner, in the instant case, has assailed the illegality and validity of the order dated 24.05.2012 issued by Officer Commanding, 14 Corps OMC, whereby the petitioner has been declared unfit for the post of Mazdoor on account of having been convicted by the Competent Criminal Court. 2. The facts, which are relevant for adjudication of the dispute involved in the instant writ petition, are that pursuant to process of recruitment initiated by the respondents, the petitioner submitted application for appointment on the post of Mazdoor and on being successful in the process, order dated 14.12.2011 was issued whereby the petitioner was selected for the post of Mazdoor subject to medical fitness and verification of the antecedents from police. He was also required to fill in the proforma for antecedents verification issued by the respondents after the aforesaid selection letter. 3. As per petitioner, he was prosecuted in a criminal case lodged against him and so many other persons for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 325/149 of IPC and after trial of the aforesaid case, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Behrod, Alwar vide its judgment dated 29.07.2011, although convicted the petitioner under Section 147 IPC, yet instead of awarding sentence, benefit of section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, ‘the Act of 1958’) was given to the petitioner and the aforesaid judgment dated 29.07.2011, the competent criminal court has also observed that such judgment would also entail benefits under Section 12 of the aforesaid Act, so that the conviction may not cause any adverse effect over his future life. 4. Petitioner stated that despite grant of benefit of Section 12 of the aforesaid Act, vide order/letter dated 24.05.2012, the petitioner has been declared unfit for the post solely on account of the aforesaid judgment dated 19.01.2011, which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and has deprived him of his legitimate right to get appointment on the post of Mazdoor. 5. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition in which it was mentioned that in the initial advertisement notice dated 16.09.2011 itself, it was made clear that the selected candidates will be given appointment letter by the concerned authorities subject to verification of character and antecedents. 5. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition in which it was mentioned that in the initial advertisement notice dated 16.09.2011 itself, it was made clear that the selected candidates will be given appointment letter by the concerned authorities subject to verification of character and antecedents. After remaining successful in the process, when the selection letter dated 14.12.2011 was issued, it was made clear that such selection was made subject to medical fitness and verification of antecedents. However, the petitioner while filling the verification form deliberately mentioned incorrect information in the form with regard to the entries required to be filled in as per clause 11 of the application form, in which he was required to disclose as to whether he has ever been arrested, prosecuted, sentenced, bound by police or fined by the Court of law or even convicted by the Court of law. Against all such columns, the petitioner has conveniently stated “No”, which is not only giving false information, yet also be termed as an attempt to obtain government service by suppressing and concealing the relevant facts with regard to the prior conviction. Hence, as per the respondents, they have rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner and he has been declared unfit on account of his antecedents. 6. The petitioner has submitted rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents, in which it has been stated that the reason for declaring the petitioner as unfit for appointment is not suppression of material facts or giving false information, but it was the conviction ordered by the competent criminal court, which prompted the respondents to declare the petitioner unfit. Hence, the respondents in reply to the writ petition cannot give any other reason for supporting their cause, which is different form the reason mentioned in rejection letter. It was further mentioned in the rejoinder by the petitioner that he belongs to rural area and is a less educated person, who filled in verification form bonafidely and as per his little understanding. It was further mentioned in the rejoinder by the petitioner that he belongs to rural area and is a less educated person, who filled in verification form bonafidely and as per his little understanding. It was stated that the petitioner was very young at that relevant time and was not able to understand the technical terminology of law and in the light of information given to him with regard to the effect and consequences of the judgment dated 29.07.2011 as well as on account of his inability to distinguish between the terms of conviction, probation and acquittal, he had put the word “No” in the blank spaces, he was required to fill in column No.11 of the antecedents verification form. Hence, in view of the fact that he has already been given benefit of Section 12 of the Act, rejection of his candidature cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The petitioner in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 498/2010 decided on 24.03.2022 as well as the judgment of Girish Kumar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2012 (3) WLC Raj. 364. On the contrary and the respondents have supported their contention on the basis of judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Anil Kanwariya in Civil Appeal Nos. 5743-5744/2021 decided on 17.09.2021 . 7. I have meticulously considered the submissions made at Bar and have also examined the record of the writ petition. 8. It is an admitted fact that while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner vide letter dated 24.05.2012, the respondents have mentioned the reasons that he has been convicted by the Court of ACJM No.1, Behrod vide judgment dated 29.07.2011, however, while referring the aforesaid judgment dated 29.07.2011, it has not been mentioned in letter dated 24.05.2012 that benefit of Section 12 of the Act has also been given by the Competent Criminal Court to the petitioner and the effect and consequence of such benefit has also not been taken into account by the respondents. 9. 9. The petitioner has raised an issue that in view of the fact that the respondents cannot supplement anything to the aforesaid letter dated 24.05.2012 by way of mentioning additional grounds in reply to the writ petition for rejection of candidature of the petitioner. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the rejection letter dated 24.05.2012 nowhere refers to concealment or suppression of facts with regard to the aforesaid conviction therefore, under these circumstances, respondents cannot be allowed to add anything which is not there in letter dated 24.05.2012. 10. It would be relevant to refer the judgment delivered by the constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner reported in 1978(1) SCC 405 , in which clear-cut verdict has been given that the document has to be read in view of the language or reasons mentioned in the document and such document is to be read alone for the purpose of understanding the nature and effect of the document. The language used in the document cannot be supplemented subsequently during litigation by way of adding additional evidence in the affidavit before the Court. The aforesaid position of law is well settled and has been followed by the different court on number of occasions. 11. Be that as it may, bare perusal of letter/order dated 24.05.2012 would reveal that the reasons for rejection of candidature of the petitioner is convicted by the Court of ACJM No.1, Behrod vide judgment dated 29.07.2011. Now the question arises before this Court is that merely by rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on account of aforesaid judgment of conviction and by omitting the ground of suppression of facts can be considered to be a situation to advantage of the petitioner or not? Once the objection with regard to suppression of facts relating to conviction and antecedents of the petitioner has been raised in reply to the writ petition, this court in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india cannot close its eyes, nor can it ignore the same merely for the reason that such ground was not mentioned in the impugned letter of rejection. Such objection with regard to suppression cannot be said to be supplementing the ground of rejection mentioned in impugned letter, but is rather a statement to further strengthen the ground of rejection, moreso when such act of suppression has not been disputed by the petitioner himself. 12. The position would have been altogether different had the petitioner disclosed the correct and complete facts with regard to aforesaid judgment of conviction in the verification form and only thereafter, submissions made by him that the benefit of Section 12 of the Act of 1958 granted by ACJM the competent criminal court has not been taken into consideration by the respondents, could have been better appreciated by this Court. 13. Merely, the contention raised by the petitioner that being a rustic villager and less educated person, he could not mention the correct facts, would not absolve him from the responsibility of placing the correct facts before the employer. 14. Judgment of Girish Kumar Meena (supra) relied upon by the petitioner lays down that mere non-mentioning of the fact of criminal case in the application is not decisive unless it be a case of intentional concealment aimed at taking undue advantage. Another judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Manoj Kumar (supra) lays down that there cannot be any straight jacket formula to decide each case of concealment of criminal antecedents by a candidate. Each case has to be decided on facts and circumstances and the impact of suppression of facts and concealment of information. 15. Per contra, counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. (supra) would make it clear that the object of requiring information in the attestation form and the declaration thereafter by the candidate is to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to enter into or continue in service. When a candidate suppresses material information or gives false information he cannot claim any right for appointment. It has also been held that the criminal case against the person may not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information in itself amounts to moral turpitude. When a candidate suppresses material information or gives false information he cannot claim any right for appointment. It has also been held that the criminal case against the person may not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information in itself amounts to moral turpitude. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the information sought by the employer, if not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material information and in that eventuality, candidate is not entitled for appointment. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also observed that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to those persons who have defrauded or misrepresented themselves and in such circumstances the court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining writ petition on behalf of such persons. 16. In view of the above, it is clear that the statement made by the petitioner that he was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and has also given the benefit of Section 12 of the Act of 1956 would not brush aside his primary responsibility to disclose the correct facts and his concealment has adversely affected his credit and trustworthiness, moreso he was at the initial stage of employment process and is submitting incorrect information or is suppressing the material facts. Under these circumstances the petitioner is not entitled for any relief whatsoever. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit and substance and accordingly it stands dismissed. 17. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.