SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME A.P. AND ORS. versus B. CHINNAM NAIDU

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 1147 · Decided: 09-02-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
> 
SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME A.P. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
B. CHINNAM NAIDU 
FEBRUARY 9, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Recruitment-Attestation Form-Suppression of material information- c 
Disqualification-Column 12 of Attestation Form requiring for information 
about conviction by a court of law or detention under any Central/State 
prevemive detention laws-Candidate not mentioning about his arrest and 
pendency of a criminal case against him-Appointment refused-Held, 
conviction by a court or detention under any Central/State preventive detention 
laws is different from arrest in any case or pendency of a case-Jn view of D ' 
specific language of Column 12 candidate cannot be found guilty of any 
suppression. 
Respondent was selected as Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police 
Constable (Civil), but was not allowed to join the required training 
programme. He approached the Tribunal. It was brought to the notice E 
of the Tribunal that the respondent had been arrested under various 
provisions of IPC and Andhra Pradesh Public Examination Preventiou 
of Malpractice and Unfair Means Act, 1997, which fact the respondent 
suppressed in the Attestation Form, and as such he was not eligible to be 
appointed. The Tribunal held that the respondent was not a person of F 
good conduct and character since he had suppressed material information 
and dismissed the application. However, the High Court allowed 
respondent's writ petition holding that there was no requirement in 
Column 12 of the Attestation Form to mention about any pending case or 
arrest, and, therefore, the action of the authorities could not be sustained. 
Aggrieved, the State Government filed the appeal. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
~ 
HELD: I. I. When a candidate suppresses material information and/ 
or gives false information he cannot claim any right for appointment or 
1147 
H 
1148 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] I S.C.R. 
A continuance in service. But on the facts of the case, it cann·~t be said that 
the respondent had made false declaration or had suppn~ssed material 
information. 11151-FI 
1.2. In the instant case, a bare perusal of Columns n and 3 of the 
Attestation Form would show that the candidate is required to indicate 
B as to whether he has ever been convicted by a court of law or detained 
under any State/Central preventive detention laws for any offences, 
whether such conviction is sustained or set aside by the app1~1late court, if 
appealed against. The candidate is not required to indicate as to whether 
he had been arrested in any case or as to whether any case was pending. 
C Conviction by a court or detention under any State/Central Preventive 
Detention Laws is different from arrest in any case or pendE:ncy of a case. 
By answering that the respondent had not been convicted or detained 
under Preventive Detention Laws it cannot be said that he had suppressed 
any material fact or had furnished any false information or suppressed 
any information in the Attestation Form to incur disqualitkation. There 
D was no specific requirement to mention as to whether any ci1se is pending 
or whether the applicant had been arrested. In view of the specific 
language so far as Column No. 12 is concerned the respond1~nt cannot be 
found guilty of any suppression. (1152-B-El 
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. Ram Raton Yadav, (2003) 3 
E SC 437, distinguished. 
2. The question whether the respondent was a desirable person to 
be appointed in Government service was not the subjei:t matter of 
adjudication and the Tribunal was not justified in recordin1: any finding 
F in that regard. Whether a person is fit to be appointed or not is a matter 
within the special domain of the Government. For denying somebody 
appointment after he is selected, though he has no right to he appointed, 
has to be governed by some statutory provisions. That was not the issue 
which was to be adjudicated in the present case. The only issue related 
to suppression of facts or mis-declaration. ( 1152-G-H; 1153·-Al 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. I 014 of2005. 
' 
• 
... 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.2003 of the Andhra Pradesh 
;.. 
High Court in W.P.No. I 7943 of 2003. 
H 
Manoj Saxena, S.K. Mittra, Debojit Borkakati and Mohanprasad Meharia 
\ 
SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME SECY. A.P. v. B. C. NAIDU [PASA Y AT, J.] 1149 
> 
for the Appellants. 
A 
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was deliv

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.