Yash Anil Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors

$~86
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 24.08.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010395282026
+ LPA 660/2026, CM APPL. 56911/2026 & CM APPL. 56914/2026
YASH ANIL GUPTA .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Nenwani & Mr. Sagar
N. Pahune Patil, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, CGSC along
with Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, G.P. &
Mr. Rahul Mourya, Advocate for
Respondent No.1/Union of India.
Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, Senior
Advocate along with Mr. Anukalp
Jain, Mr. Abhijit Mittal, Ms. Ankita
Bhattacharjee, Mr. Karandeep Singh
& Mr. Kartik Seth &, Advocates for
Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
TEJAS KARIA, J. ( Oral )
CM APPL. 56912/2026 & CM APPL. 56913/2026 ( Exemptions )
1. Exemptions are allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Applications stand disposed of.
LPA 660/2026 Page 1 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:44:21

LPA 660/2026
3. The present intra court appeal assails the Order dated 27.07.2026
(“ Impugned Order ”) passed in W.P.(C) 10335/2026 (“ Writ Petition ”),
filed by the Appellant.
4. The brief factual matrix leading to the filing of the present Appeal is
as under:
4.1 The Appellant is a person with 100% hearing impairment and is in
possession of a Disability Certificate dated 18.07.2016 issued by
the Government of Maharashtra, as well as a Unique Disability
Card dated 08.03.2021 issued by the Government of India, both of
which certify his 100% hearing impairment.
4.2 On 20.02.2026, the Respondents issued an official Recruitment
Advertisement for filling vacancies to the post of Executive
Trainee (Mechanical) (E-2 Grade) (“ Post ”), through the Graduate
Aptitude Test in Engineering (“ GATE ”) 2026 Examination,
including vacancies reserved for Persons with Benchmark
Disabilities (“ PwBD ”).
4.3 The Appellant, having completed his B. Tech. in Mechanical
Engineering from Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology,
Nagpur, Maharashtra, and having qualified the GATE-2026
Examination, applied for the Post by submitting an online
application form on 25.02.2026.
4.4 Thereafter, the Respondents shortlisted the Appellant and issued
an interview call letter dated 08.06.2026 in respect of the Post.
LPA 660/2026 Page 2 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:44:21

4.5 Subsequently, on 15.06.2026, the Appellant submitted his
Application Form for employment, along with the requisite
documents, on the website of Respondent No. 2 (“ Application
Form ”). In the Application Form, the Appellant answered
Question No. 20 (“ Question No. 20 ”), reproduced hereinbelow, in
the negative:
“ 20. Have you ever been arrested in a criminal case or
convicted, fined or imprisoned for violation of any law
(excluding minor traffic violation) or is any criminal/
disciplinary / vigilance case pending/ever instituted against
you or have you been barred/ disqualified by a Public Service
Commission/University or any other educational authority
from appearing in its examinations ?”
4.6 The Respondents, vide email dated 08.07.2026, issued an offer
letter of appointment for the Post to the Appellant, directing him to
report on 15.07.2026. Thereafter, the Appellant sent his signed
acceptance letter by email to the Respondents on 14.07.2026 and
reported for physical verification of documents on 15.07.2026.
4.7 On 15.07.2026, the Appellant filled the Attestation Form
(“ Attestation Form ”), wherein he answered ‘ Yes ’ to the questions,
‘ Have you ever been prosecuted? ’ and ‘ Is any case pending
against you in any court of law at the time of filling up this
attestation form? ’, and ‘ No ’ to the question, ‘ Have you ever been
convicted by a Court of Law for any offence? ’.
4.8 On 15.07.2026, the Appellant also submitted a disclosure affidavit
dated 15.06.2026 (“ Affidavit ”) at the verification desk, disclosing
First Information Report (“ FIR ”) No. 171/2020 dated 21.08.2020
LPA 660/2026 Page 3 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:44:21

(“ 2020-FIR ”), registered at Ajintha Police Station, Maharashtra,
for offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“ IPC ”). The 2020-FIR was
registered against the Appellant and his family members on the
basis of complaints lodged by distant relatives arising out of an
ancestral family land dispute.
4.9 On 17.07.2026, the Respondents questioned the ‘ No ’ entry made
by the Appellant in the Application Form in response to Question
No. 20, returned the documents submitted by him, and did not
permit him to participate in the ongoing training programme for
the Post (“ Training ”), pending completion of his background
verification.
4.10 Thereafter, on 17.07.2026, the Appellant addressed an e-mail to
the Respondents, stating that there were structural limitations in
the Application Form, that he had no intention to suppress the
pendency of the criminal cases, and requesting that he be permitted
to re-join the Training.
4.11 Subsequently, the Appellant filed the Writ Petition, inter alia ,
seeking a direction to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to permit him to
immediately re-join and complete the Training.
4.12 The learned Single Judge, vide the Impugned Order, dismissed the
Writ Petition, inter alia , observing that the subsequent disclosures
made in the Attestation Form and the Affidavit could not cure the
earlier false declaration furnished in the Application Form, and
that the Respondents’ decision to prevent the Appellant from
continuing with the Training, pending a decision on his
LPA 660/2026 Page 4 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:44:21

candidature, could not be said to suffer from arbitrariness,
perversity or any infirmity warranting interference under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
4.13 Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Appellant has preferred the
present Appeal.
5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Question No. 20 is
vague, ambiguous and comprises of distinct questions. The first question,
namely, ‘ Have you ever been arrested in a criminal case or convicted, fined
or imprisoned for violation of any law (excluding minor traffic violation)? ’,
was answered in the negative, as the Appellant had neither been arrested nor
convicted, fined or imprisoned as on the date of submission of the
Application Form. The second question, namely, ‘ is any criminal/
disciplinary / vigilance case pending/ever instituted against you or have you
been barred/ disqualified by a Public Service Commission/University or any
other educational authority from appearing in its examinations? ’, was also
answered in the negative, as the Appellant was not an accused in any
criminal case involving a public service commission, university or any other
educational authority. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted
that the Application Form did not contain any separate column requiring
disclosure of any pending, unadjudicated FIR or criminal complaint against
the Appellant.
6. It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that, unlike the
Application Form, the Attestation Form required the Appellant to state
whether he had been ‘ convicted ’ by a court of law and provided only ‘ Yes ’
and ‘ No ’ options, without requiring any declaration regarding pending
criminal cases. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that, since the
LPA 660/2026 Page 5 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:44:21

Appellant had never been convicted by any court of law, he selected the
option ‘No’.
7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that a
‘conviction’ and a mere ‘pending FIR’ are distinct concepts and cannot be
equated. It was, therefore, contended that the Respondents acted unjustly in
preventing the Appellant from participating in the Training and penalising
him despite his having answered a specific question truthfully.
8. It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that furnishing the
Affidavit at the verification stage clearly showed that there was no mens rea
or intention to suppress the 2020-FIR or FIR bearing No. 21/2022 dated
30.01.2022 (“ 2022-FIR ”), registered at Ajintha Police Station, Maharashtra,
for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 504
and 505 of the IPC against the Appellant and his family members, on
complaints by distant relatives arising from an ancestral land dispute. It was
further submitted that denial of appointment on account of FIR No.
171/2020 dated 21.08.2020 and the 2022-FIR (“ FIRs ”) would cause grave
prejudice and irreparable loss to the Appellant’s career.
9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant placed reliance on Avtar Singh v.
Union of India and Others , (2016) 8 SCC 471, to submit that, for
determining suppression or furnishing of false information, the
attestation/verification form must be specific and not vague.
10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Respondents, on
04.08.2026, also terminated the Appellant’s appointment without
considering the Affidavit and the e-mail representation dated 17.07.2026,
and without affording the Appellant any opportunity of hearing.
LPA 660/2026 Page 6 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:44:21

11. Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that
the recruitment process for the Post comprised two stages. At the first stage,
the Appellant was required to submit an online application furnishing his
credentials. Thereafter, the Appellant was required to submit the Application
Form, pursuant to which the Respondents issued the offer of appointment
dated 08.07.2026. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the said offer of
appointment was expressly subject to verification of the Appellant’s
documents and that, accordingly, the Appellant was required to furnish the
Attestation Form containing specific declarations regarding his criminal
antecedents.
12. Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that
although the Appellant was aware of the FIRs and had obtained the
Affidavit on 15.06.2026 itself, he did not submit the same until after the
offer of appointment was issued on 08.07.2026. Learned Senior Counsel
further submitted that, in the Affidavit, the Appellant disclosed only one of
the two FIRs, namely, the 2020-FIR, and that the 2022-FIR was disclosed
only in the Writ Petition.
13. Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 placed reliance
on Avtar Singh ( supra ), Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal , (2013) 9
SCC 363, Bappa Barai v. Union of India & Ors. , Neutral Citation: 2026
INSC 882, and Kailash Mandal v. CISF , 2026 SCC OnLine Del 548, to
submit that, in a case involving deliberate suppression of material facts
relating to multiple pending criminal cases, such false information assumes
significance in itself, and an employer may pass an appropriate order
cancelling candidature or terminating services, as the appointment of a
person against whom multiple criminal cases are pending may not be proper.
LPA 660/2026 Page 7 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:44:21

14. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Appellant’s
contention that Question No. 20 was vague and ambiguous is devoid of
merit. It was submitted on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the
Appellant is a highly educated and meritorious candidate, capable of
understanding the purport of Question No. 20, and that, if the Appellant had
any doubt regarding its meaning, he could have sought clarification from
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
plea that Question No. 20 was vague and ambiguous was raised by the
Appellant for the first time only in the e-mail dated 17.07.2026.
15. Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 further
submitted that the Post is reserved for PwBD candidates and that the
Appellant’s non-selection would not result in the Post being offered to a
candidate from the general category, as the said Post would continue to be
considered for another eligible PwBD candidate.
16. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the communication dated
04.08.2026 is not a termination letter, but a disengagement letter pertaining
to the present recruitment process for the Post. It was further submitted that,
insofar as Respondent No. 2 is concerned, the Appellant would be at liberty
to apply in the next recruitment cycle, subject to full disclosures and in
accordance with the applicable terms and conditions.
17. We have heard learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the
material placed on record.
18. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant is that
Question No. 20 is vague and ambiguous and that, since the Appellant
subsequently and voluntarily disclosed the FIRs in the Affidavit, no
intention to suppress the FIRs can be attributed to him. It is, therefore,
LPA 660/2026 Page 8 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:44:21

submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Respondents’ action in
preventing him from participating in the Training, pending completion of
background verification, is arbitrary, mechanical and illegal.
19. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention as the Appellant’s
submission proceeds on a dissection of Question No. 20, notwithstanding its
object, which was to ascertain and verify the Appellant’s character and
antecedents and to assess his suitability for the Post. Question No. 20
specifically required the Appellant to disclose whether any
criminal/disciplinary/vigilance case was pending or had ever been instituted
against him. The reference to the Public Service Commission, University or
any other educational authority in Question No. 20 appears in relation to
whether the candidate had been barred or disqualified from appearing in its
examinations. The question, therefore, cannot be construed as limiting the
requirement of disclosure of a pending criminal case only to cases
concerning a Public Service Commission, University or any other
educational authority.
20. It is evident that, at the time of submitting the Application Form,
criminal proceedings arising out of the FIRs were admittedly pending
against the Appellant. The negative response furnished by the Appellant to
Question No. 20 was, therefore, incorrect.
21. There is no cavil with the proposition of law laid down in Avtar
Singh ( supra ). However, in the present case, Question No. 20 is clear and
unambiguous and specifically seeks disclosure of the Appellant’s criminal
antecedents. The reliance placed on Avtar Singh ( supra ), therefore, does not
advance the Appellant’s case.
LPA 660/2026 Page 9 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:44:21

22. The Appellant was conscious of the FIRs during the recruitment
process for the Post and, in fact, had obtained the Affidavit on 15.06.2026
itself, disclosing the pendency of the criminal proceedings arising out of the
2020-FIR. However, the Appellant did not submit the Affidavit until after
the offer of appointment dated 08.07.2026 had been issued. We, therefore,
find no merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the Appellant that the
subsequent disclosure made in the Affidavit negates any suppression on his
part.
23. The purpose of seeking information in the attestation form and
requiring a declaration from the candidate is to ascertain and verify the
candidate’s character and antecedents, and to assess his suitability for
entering or continuing in service. In the present case, despite being aware of
the FIRs, the Appellant furnished a negative response to Question No. 20.
24. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge, vide the Impugned Order, has
rightly observed that the subsequent disclosures made by the Appellant in
the Attestation Form and by way of the Affidavit were admittedly made only
after the Appellant had successfully completed the selection process,
received the offer of appointment dated 08.07.2026, and reported for
joining. The learned Single Judge further held that the legality of the
Respondents’ action must, therefore, be examined with reference to the
declaration furnished in the Application Form and not based on disclosures
made at a subsequent stage. We concur with the view taken by the learned
Single Judge. Accordingly, the present Appeal deserve to be dismissed.
25. However, the withdrawal of the offer of appointment dated
08.07.2026, vide communication dated 04.08.2026 may have a bearing on
the Appellant’s future candidature in any recruitment process.
LPA 660/2026 Page 10 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:44:21

26. Accordingly, in view of the submission by the Respondents that the
communication dated 04.08.2026 was not a termination letter, but a
disengagement letter pertaining to the present recruitment process for the
Post and the Appellant shall be entitled to apply to Respondent No. 2 itself
in the next recruitment cycle, subject to full disclosures and in accordance
with the applicable terms and conditions.
27. Accordingly, it is directed that the communication dated 04.08.2026,
whereby the disengagement of the Appellant was communicated, shall not
be construed as termination of his employment and shall not carry any
stigma of termination. It is further directed that any future candidature of the
Appellant before Respondent No. 2, or before any other employer or
recruiting agency, shall be considered independently and on its own merits,
in accordance with the terms and conditions governing the relevant
recruitment process and the disclosures made by the Appellant therein,
uninfluenced by the communication dated 04.08.2026 or any observations
made hereinabove or in the Impugned Order.
28. The Appeal is dismissed along with the aforesaid directions. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to
costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
AUGUST 24, 2026 / Hk
LPA 660/2026 Page 11 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:44:21