Orissa High Court: In a civil writ petition challenging the cancellation of petitioner’s candidature for the position of Junior Overman (Trainee) by the Deputy General Manager, MPP, Recruitment & PR, NLC India Limited, the Single Judge Bench of Dr. SK Panigrahi, J. stated that a candidate who suppresses material information or provides false declarations does not possess an unfettered right to seek appointment. The Court explained that suppression of criminal antecedents and failure to disclose pending FIRs has significant consequences, particularly for positions that demand trust and integrity, hence, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned cancellation of candidature.
The Court also said that impact of withholding such material information, including involvement in criminal cases, is within the employer’s discretion to assess. The employer must evaluate all relevant facts and circumstances, considering objective criteria and applicable service rules, before making a decision.
Factual Matrix
The petitioner holds a Diploma in Mining Engineering and is a Project Affected Person (PAP) of NLCIL. He applied for the position of Junior Overman (Trainee) in the S.I. grade at NLCIL. Following the written test, the petitioner was found eligible and proceeded to the document verification stage. Pending the medical examination, the petitioner was informed that his candidature was withdrawn, and his selection for the Junior Overman (Trainee) position in the S.I. grade was cancelled due to his answer “No” to the question if he had ever been convicted, detained, prosecuted, arrested, bound down, debarred, or fined by any court of law?” Three FIRs were registered against the petitioner at different police stations.
The petitioner contended that the cancellation of his candidature was based on fabricated claims. All relevant facts, including criminal cases, had been disclosed during the document verification process, but the respondents raised the issue at a later stage.
The Court referred to Avtar Singh v. Union of India, , wherein, the Supreme Court laid down broad guidelines that must be taken into account by the appointing or competent authority in dealing with matters where there is suppression of material information or false representation: 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. 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.
Further, in Secy., Deptt. of Home Secy., A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu, , the Supreme Court underscored that suppression of material information or providing false information in an attestation form could lead to the termination of employment. It was clarified that where a candidate is required to disclose if they have been convicted by a criminal court, answering in the negative does not amount to misrepresentation if only a criminal case is pending at the time. The Court also noted that in State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar, , the Supreme Court while dealing with a case where an employee had answered “No” to a question regarding whether he had been arrested, despite having voluntarily appeared before a magistrate after the registration of an FIR, extended the benefit of doubt to the employee, emphasizing that the situation appeared to be a misunderstanding rather than a deliberate misrepresentation or concealment of facts, upon noting that although the employee was granted bail and later acquitted, it was found that he had not been formally taken into custody.
In the matter at hand, the Court noted that the petitioner applied for the position of Junior Overman (Trainee) at NLCIL but failed to mention three pending FIRs at the time of application, despite the question in the recruitment form specifically requesting disclosure of such information. The Court said that these FIRs, did not result in convictions or formal Court arrests but were material to the application process and should have been disclosed.
The Court added that the application form explicitly required candidates to provide truthful information regarding criminal convictions, arrests, or pending cases. The Court held that the petitioner’s failure to disclose these FIRs, even though no Court arrest occurred, constituted suppression of material information. The Court stated that the purpose of the disclosure was to ensure transparency and assess the candidate’s suitability for a role demanding high standards of integrity. The concealment of the FIRs undermined this principle and raised concerns about the candidate’s integrity. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition and held that there were no merits in the petition to interfere with the impugned decision cancelling the candidature of petitioner.
[Manoj Rohidas v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No.14568 of 2024, decided on: 17-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: S.K. Purohit, Adv.
For the respondent: P.K. Parhi, DSGI; A. Khandelwal, Adv.
The post appeared first on .