Disclosure of service cessation under statutory rules does not constitute suppression justifying cancellation of candidature.

Respondent 1 applied for the post of Enforcement Officer/Accounts Officer with the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO).

In his Attestation Form at Stage I, he disclosed that his reason for leaving previous service was "Non-confirmation of probation under rule 5(1) of CCS Temporary Service Rules of 1965"

At Stage II (document verification), he produced the actual termination order

Despite clearing all recruitment stages and being declared medically fit, the EPFO issued a communication on January 25, 2023, cancelling his candidature on the grounds that he had "suppressed" the fact of his termination

Respondent 1 challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which allowed his plea. The EPFO filed this writ petition challenging the CAT's order

1. Whether Respondent 1 suppressed material information in his Attestation Form by stating he was not confirmed under Rule 5(1) instead of using the word "termination."

2. Whether the cancellation of Respondent 1's candidature on grounds of suppression of facts was legally sustainable.

The court examined Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, which governs the termination of services of temporary employees

The legal principle relied upon is that "suppression" requires a deliberate withholding of material facts. If the information provided is functionally equivalent to the truth and sufficient to put the employer on notice of the candidate's history, it does not amount to suppression

The court noted that the requirement of transparency is met if the relevant documents are produced during the verification stage of the recruitment process

The Court found that the Petitioner’s allegation of suppression was a "distinction without a difference". It reasoned that since Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules refers exclusively to termination, Respondent 1’s disclosure that his services ended under said Rule effectively communicated his termination.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that the word "termination" specifically had to be used, noting that acknowledging non-confirmation of probation under Rule 5(1) made the termination obvious.

The Court observed that the Respondent had actually produced the termination order during Stage-II of the selection process. While the Court noted that the CAT had erroneously focused on whether Rule 5(1) was a bar to future employment rather than the issue of suppression, it held that the final result of the CAT's order remained correct because no actual suppression occurred.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine but affirmed the CAT’s final decision to set aside the cancellation of candidature. The Petitioner was directed to ensure compliance with the order within four weeks.