Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5335 of 2005
PETITIONER:
A.P. Public Service Commission
RESPONDENT:
Koneti Venkateswarulu & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/08/2005
BENCH:
H. K. Sema & B. N. Srikrishna
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22848/2004)
SRIKRISHNA, J.
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave is brought by the A.P. Public Service
Commission to impugn a judgment of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad directing the appellant commission to give
employment to the First Respondent by accommodating him in the next
available vacancy. The facts leading to the present appeal fall within a
limited matrix and they are as follows.
On 2.7.1999 the appellant commission published an advertisement
inviting applications for filling up various categories of posts including four
posts of Women Child and Welfare Officers by direct recruitment from
candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The application form given out to
the candidates, required by Column 11 and Annexure III, that the candidates
should furnish full information with regard to their appointments in
Government / private sectors, if any. The notification issued by the
commission specifically informed the candidates that giving of any false/
wrong information or suppression of material information would lead to
cancellation of the candidature. The First Respondent was a candidate for
the recruitment as he belongs to Scheduled Tribe. He filled up the
application form, but left Column 11 pertaining to previous employment
totally blank. He gave a declaration at the end of the application which
stated:
"I hereby declare that all statements made in this
application are true and correct and I undertake to
produce original documents at any moment of time,
failing which my candidature could be cancelled."
He also filled up Annexure III in which the declaration was as follows:
"I hereby declare that I am not working in any
Government Department/ Quasi Government/ Public
Sector/ Private Sector and that my maximum age does
not exceed 35 years as on 1.7.1999.
I further declare that the information furnished by
me is true and correct and my candidature shall be
cancelled at any stage if it is found in-correct."
The application of the First Respondent was accepted and he was
allowed to take the written examination. The First Respondent passed the
written examination and was called for interview. He was also selected in
the interview. Before the First Respondent could be notified about the result,
the appellant learnt that the First Respondent was employed and was
working as a teacher, and that he had suppressed this information by
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
deliberately not filling up Column 11. A show cause notice was issued to the
First Respondent calling upon him to show cause why his candidature
should not be cancelled. The First Respondent submitted an explanation to
the show cause notice stating therein inter alia that he inadvertently filled up
and signed Annexure III of the application form, which was not required to
be filled up by him and, therefore, there was no suppression of material
information. Annexure III was intended only for candidates seeking fee
exemption for un-employed youth in the age group of 18-35. This was not
applicable to the First Respondent as he belonged to Scheduled Tribe. The
appellant commission cancelled the candidature of the First Respondent by
taking the view that he had deliberately indulged in suppression of relevant
information and that his explanation to the show cause notice was not
satisfactory.
The First Respondent moved the A.P. Administrative Tribunal,
Hyderabad ("the Tribunal") by his application O.A. No. 7962/2001
challenging the cancellation of his candidature. The Tribunal heard the
parties and by its order dated 18.11.2003 dismissed the O.As. and upheld the
action of the appellant commission in cancellation of the candidature of the
First Respondent. The First Respondent moved the High Court of Judicature,
Andhra Pradesh by a Writ Petition No. 26743/2003 in which he impugned
the judgment and order of the Tribunal. By the impugned judgment the High
Court allowed his writ petition and accepted the explanation of the First
Respondent that he had not misrepresented or suppressed any material
information. Since the selection of the petitioner-first respondent was for the
year 1999 and all posts had been filled up by 7.1.2004, the date on which the
judgment of the High Court was rendered, the High Court directed that the
First Respondent had to be accommodated in the next available vacancy to
the post of Women & Child Welfare Officer reserved for ST candidates. The
appellant commission being aggrieved by the said order is in appeal before
this Court.
The learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the
photocopy of the application dated 24.7.1999 from which it is clearly seen
that as against Column No. 11 the First Respondent has given no
information whatsoever, leaving the column blank by drawing lines. He had
put his signature and made declaration in the application which is earlier
reproduced. The First Respondent also filled up Annexure III and made a
declaration therein as reproduced earlier. Learned counsel for the appellant
commission relied on the judgment of this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan and Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav and contended that when
information with regard to the antecedents of a candidate is called for, it is
intended to verify and cross-check the information so that the suitability of
the candidate for employment could be judged. If the candidate indulges in
suppresso veri and suggestio falsi, he proves himself unfit to be employed,
all the more so, if he is to be employed in public employment. If the
information as to the full particulars of employment was available with the
commission, the commission could have checked the antecedents of the First
Respondent with his employer and ascertained the suitability of the First
Respondent for employment. In any event, it had been made clear to the
candidates, both in the advertisement calling for applications as well as in
the body of the application itself that furnishing of false information or its
suppression was liable to result in cancellation of the candidature. The First
Respondent, therefore, did not deserve any consideration and the High Court
erred in interfering with the order of the Tribunal.
The learned counsel for the First Respondent, however, rejoins that
there was no malafide intention in not giving the full particulars. He
reiterated the contentions urged before the Tribunal and submitted that
Column 11 refers to paragraph 3(d) of the advertisement, which was
concerned only with age concession. Since age concession was being made
available to ST candidates under paragraph 3(a), there was no need for him
to fill up the requirements of Column 11 of the application. He also urged
that Annexure III was intended only for candidates claiming fee exemption;
since the First Respondent was not claiming fee concession, the annexure
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
need not have been filled by him. The fact that it was filled by him wrongly
could, therefore, not lead to any adverse consequences. He, therefore,
submits that it was pure inadvertence on the part of the First Respondent and
not malafides, which lead to the non-disclosure of his employment status.
In the submission of the learned counsel, this could not be a reason for the
cancellation of the First Respondent’s candidature.
We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the
First Respondent. 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 11. Similarly, Annexure III contained
an express declaration of not working in any public or private employment.
We are also unable to accept the contention that it was inadvertence which
led the First Respondent to leave the particulars in Column 11 blank and
make 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 bonafide mistake by him in filling up the application form, or that
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
falsi 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 falsi is incontrovertible.
The explanation that it was irrelevant or emanated from inadvertence, is
unacceptable. In our view, the appellant was justified in relying upon the
ratio of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra) and contending that a
person who indulges in such suppresso veri and suggestio falsi and obtains
employment by false pretence does not deserve any public employment. We
completely endorse this view.
In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Tribunal.
Considering that the First Respondent belongs to Scheduled Tribe, we
refrain from imposing costs upon him, with the fond hope that the next time
he applies for employment elsewhere, he will be more careful and forthright.