In an appeal filed before the Supreme Court by the State of Uttar Pradesh against a judgment and order dated 22-05-2025 by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, whereby the order by the Single Judge was affirmed in a petition preferred by the respondent, when the appellants cancelled his appointment as Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari, a Bench comprised of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeal while holding that nothing could justify the suppression of facts by the respondent regarding pending cases against him.
The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) issued an advertisement dated 05-03-2021 notifying the examination for recruitment of Samiksha Adhikari/Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari. The respondent was selected and asked to furnish an attestation form and a verification form, both of which included a question about whether any criminal cases were pending against him. The respondent answered in the negative to the same question in both forms.
However, there were two pending cases against him, one under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and another under Sections 354D of the IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Children. This fact came to light when the appellants asked the Superintendent of Police for character verification of the respondent, and when the District Magistrate’s opinion was sought for appointing him. The respondent also filed an affidavit declaring the pendency of cases against him out of his own will.
Thereafter, the appellants proceeded to cancel the respondent’s appointment. The Single Judge allowed the petition against said cancellation, noting that the District Magistrate had found no legal impediment to his appointment and that no charge sheets had been filed against him. The Division Bench upheld the findings of the Single Judge, stating that the undisclosed information was of a trivial nature.
The Court noted that proper and complete disclosure in applications for government employment is not a mere formality but a basic requirement rooted in fairness, integrity, and public trust. It was said that scrupulous vetting of every candidate is essential to ensure a level playing field and to protect the credibility of the selection process.
It was stated that even though the law recognizes that, depending on the nature of offences, non-disclosure may not invariably be fatal to a candidature, it remains a serious lapse. The Court further said that repeated non-disclosure strikes at the core of trust reposed in candidates for public service, where honesty and transparency are indispensable attributes.
The Court perused the disclaimer in both said forms and said that the respondent did not submit the truth despite the clear stipulation. It was noted that at the time of filling up the form as well as at the time of submission of the affidavit, the cases were active, and the Court found it to be undisputed that the respondent had submitted incorrect and false information at the relevant time.
The Court stated that nothing could justify the concealment by the respondent, and that his saying ‘no’ to the pending proceedings not once but twice showed mal-intent and was in direct contravention of the disclaimer in the said forms. It was also held that subsequent acquittal or the respondent trying to come clean could not accrue to his benefit.
Lastly, the Court acknowledged that the loss of a government job is not an easy loss, but said that awareness of consequences is a necessary component of actions. Hence, the appeal was allowed.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh
For Respondent – Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy
