JUDGMENT A.P. Sahi, J.
1. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of constable under the Provincial Armed Constabulary, a wing of the Uttar Pradesh Police Services.
2. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to join training and further for payment of allowances admissible to him on the post.
3. The petitioner has been denied appointment, even though he has been selected, on the ground that the petitioner tendered a false affidavit. Giving of an incorrect information about his antececlentss, therefore, amounted to an act which dis entitles, him for any appointment. A Photo stat copy of the said affidavit is appended as annexure CA 2 to the counter affidavit.
4. Challenge to the aforesaid action of the respondent is on the ground that the verification clause as contained in the form, which was required to be filled up by the petitioner did not require any information with regard to the pendency of a criminal case against the candidate. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the court to clause 11 of the said verification roll, which only requires an information in respect of any conviction by a court of law in a criminal case, It is urged that in the absence of any such requirement of filing an affidavit, the same can be treated as superfluous and cannot be taken into consideration for denying the appointment. Apart from this it is urged that the respondents were atleast required to give notice to the petitioner in this regard before withholding training of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the lodging of the F.I.R. itself was found to be false and the Judicial Magistrate on 3.1.2005 passed an order for expunging the proceedings and further launching a criminal proceeding, against the first informant for having tendered a false information.
5. Sri M.D. Singh Skekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in law it will be presumed that the there was no such proceeding pending against the petitioner and further once the Judicial Magistrate had passed an order, then there was no occasion for tendering any such information about the pendency of the case.
6. A part from this he has invited the attention of the court to the certificate / report tendered by the District Magistrate J.P.Nagar to the respondent No. 3 in respect of the petitioner dated 2.3.2005 to supplement the character certification of the petitioner.
7. Relying on several decisions of this Court and the Apex court Sri Shekhar has urged that the petitioner cannot in any way be held responsible for tendering incorrect information with regard to his antecedentss and therefore, he deserves to be sent on training.
8. The decisions relied upon by Sri Shekhar are in the case of Qamrul Hoda 1997 (2) UPLBEC 1201, which decision was affirmed by the Division Bench in the case of Awadesh Kumar Sharma decided on 24.1.2000 in writ petition No. 3864 of 2000. Sri Shekhar next invited the attention of the court to the decision of the Apex court in the case of Regional Manager v. Presiding Officer 1999 J.T. (1) 241 and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Satish Kumar Shukla v. Union of India 2002 (1) UPLBEC 610. However, the decision on which he heavily relies on has been appended as annexure IV, in the case of Harendra v. State of U.P. writ petition No. 2420 of 2005 decided on 1.2.2005. Sri Shekhar then urged that tendering of an incorrect affidavit, which was not required under the rules is absolutely superfluous and therefore, the said affidavit may at best amount to swearing an incorrect affidavit and not tendering of false information. Accordingly, the same cannot be a ground for non suiting the petitioner as he has correctly filled up the form of verification.
9. After having examined the aforesaid contentions I find that the stand taken in the counter affidavit is clearly to the effect that the swearing of a false affidavit itself dis entitled the petitioner for engagement as a constable. In another case, which has been simultaneously dealt with and devided by me today, other decisions on this issue have been referred to therein. The said case is of Krishna Kumar v. State of U.P. writ petition No. 60896 of 2005 .The same was also with regard to the engagement of a constable in U.P. police services, wherein the stand taken by the respondents is that under the circular issued by the department every candidate has to tender a correct information with regard to his antecedents including the pendency of a criminal case or detention or arrest. In the instance case, the selection is prior to the said circular dated 6.2.2005 The format of the affidavit, which has been filled up by the petitioner is the same, which has been later on referred to in the said circular dated 6.2.2005. It appears that this affidavit was called for by the respondents for the purposes of verifying the character and antecedents of a candidate. Sri Shekhar has urged that even assuming that such an affidavit was required to be given even then, the same would not vitiate the selection.
10. I have already indicated in the order of Krishna Kumar's case that the case of Qamrul Hoda cannot now be pressed into service in view of the decision of the Apex court in the Case of Kendriya Vidhalay Sanghathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav . The decision relied upon by Sri Shekhar in the case of Regional Manager v. Presiding Officer (supra ) also cannot be cited as a precedent as the said decision itself makes that clear in the last line of the said judgment. The decision in the case of Satish Kumar (supra ) was rendered prior to the decision in the case of Kendriya Vidhalaya Sangathan and it does not notice the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Delhi Administration v. Shushil Kumar . The filing of a false affidavit has been held to be a case of moral turpitude and appointment has been denied by this Court in the Division Bench decision of Sheo Govind Singh v. I.G. Police 2005 (4) E.S.C. 2720.
11. However, the decision, which now requires to be considered is in the case of Harendra (supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Single Judge has held therein that filing of an affidavit was only superfluous and there was no requirement of furnishing any such detail. On the said basis it was held that the petitioner may be held guilty of swearing a false affidavit, but he cannot be held guilty for swearing a false verification roll. Relying on the cases of Qamrul Hoda and Awadesh Kumar Sharma, the petition was allowed.
12. In my opinion, tendering of an affidavit does not appear to be superfluous as it was sought by the department for collecting information with regard to the character and antecedents of a candidate. It is intended to supplement additional information in this regard and is therefore not superfluous. This is evident from the nature of the affidavit and also the subsequent circular dated 6.2.2005 referred to in Krishna Kumar's case. Secondly, the affidavit is a solemn affirmation on oath tendering information and giving a solemn undertaking that the information which has been tendered is correct. The same was relied upon by the candidate for seeking employment. In neither of the cases, that is the present writ petition or Krishna Kumar's case, the petitioners have sought impounding of the affidavit or withdrawing from the contents thereof. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be permitted to resile back by simply stating that it was superfluous. The affidavit was tendered for the purpose of seeking employment and furnishing information about the antecedents and character of the petitioner.
13. The judgment in the case of B.C. Naidu 2005 (2) S.C.C. 746, was a case where a candidate was being charged with an allegation that he did not fill up the verification form correctly, but it was ultimately found that the verification form did not require tendering of any such information about the pendency of a case. The said case was not a case where any false affidavit had been sworn in addition to the information that was required in the verification roll. It was held that no such information was required to be indicated by a candidate in the verification roll.
14. The instant case and the case of Krishna Kumar stand on different footings on facts. The petitioner has voluntarily tendered an affidavit giving incorrect information. The Apex court in the case of Delhi Administration v. Shushil Kumar (supra ) has held that it is not the gravity of a criminal offence, which has to be looked into, but what is relevant is the antecedents of the candidate. This is necessary in order to enable the employer to form an opinion about the candidature of a person before inducting him into service. These aspects have not been dealt with and considered by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 1.2.2005 in Harendra's case. In my view the said decision would therefore not advance the cause of the petitioner.
15. It is true that the alleged non disclosure of a false criminal case against the petitioner may not be a ground for non suiting the petitioner but the filing of a false affidavit to gain employment will certainly reflect on the character of a candidate. The petitioner has not been able to deny the said fact and therefore, the filing of an affidavit voluntarily not dis closing correct facts in my opinion could be a reasonable basis to refuse employment.
16. Accordingly, I do not find this to be a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. Dismissed.