LexA.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus KONETI VENKATESWARULU AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. KONETI VENKA TESWARULU AND ORS. AUGUST 30, 2005 B [H.K. SEMA AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] Service Law. Public Service Commission-Advertisement issued inviting applications C for filling up posts-Application form requiring full employment particulars to be given-Selected candidate suppressing relevant information and making false declaration in application form-Candidate claiming bonafide mistake in filing up application form-Defence that mistake was inadvertent or inconsequential cannot be accepted-No Steps taken to inform commission D about the bona fide mis~ake-Jn the facts, held candidate guilty of suppresso veri and suggestio falsi and does not deserve public employment-Selection. Appellant commission issued advertisement inviting applications for filling up various categories of posts and the application form by Column E 11 and Annexure III required the candidates to funish full information with regard to their prrevious employment, if any. Notification issued by commission specifically informed candidates that giving of any false I wrong information would lead to cancellation of candidature. Respondent No. 1 belonging to Scheduled Tribe and employed and working as teacher F filled up application form but left Column 11 totally blank and gave false declaration in Annexure III. Respondent No. l was selected but appellant commission on coming to know that he was employed and working cancelled his candidature after issuing show-cause notice on the ground that he had deliberately suppressed relevant information and his explanation to the notice was not satisfactory. Respondent No. 1 moved A.P. Administrative G Tribunal and the Tribunal upheld the action of the appellant commission. Respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition challenging order of the Tribunal which was allowed by the High Court on the ground that respondent No. 1 had not misrepresented or suppressed any material information and directed appellant commission to give employment to respondent No. 1 in H the next available vacancy. Hence this appeal by the appellant commision. 1050 A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. KONETI VENKATESWARULU ] 051 Appellant commission contended that information regarding A antecedents of candidate are requirement to verify and cross-check information to judge suitability of candidate for employment, and that candidate suppressing relevant information and making false information proves himself unfit to be employed. Respondent No. I contended that there was inadvertence but no malajide intention on his part while filling up application form; and that Column 11 was concerned only with age concession and Annexure III was intended only for candidates claiming fee exemption and were not required to be filled by him as he was claiming them and therefore filling them could not lead to any adverse consequences. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. As to the purpose for which the information is called, the employer is the ultimate judge. It is not open to the candidate to sit in judgment about the relevance of the information called for and decide to supply it or not. There is no doubt that the application called for full employment particulars vide Column I I. Similarly, Annexure III contained an express declaration of not working in any public or private employment. B c D The contention cannot be accepted that it was inadvertence which led the First Respondent to leave the particulars in Column II blank and make E the declaration of non-employment in Annexure III to the application. The application was filled on 24.7.1999, the examination was held on 24.10.1999, and the interview call was given on 31.1.2000. At no point of time did the First Respondent inform the appellant commission that there was a bonajide mistake by him in filling up the application form, or that F there was inadvertence on his part in doing so. It is only when the appellant commission discovered by itself that there was suppresso veri and suggestio fa/si on the part of the First Respondent in the application that the respondent came forward with an excuse that it was due to inadvertence. That there has been suppresso veri and suggestio fa/si is incontrovertible. The explanation that it was irrelevant or emanated from G inadvertence, is unacceptable. A person who indulges in suppresso veri and suggestio fa/si and obtains employment by false pretence does not d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.