Subsequent disclosure cannot cure suppression of pending criminal proceedings in a recruitment application.

The Appellant, a person with 100% hearing impairment, applied for the post of Executive Trainee (Mechanical) under a recruitment advertisement issued through GATE 2026 and was shortlisted for interview

In the employment Application Form dated 15.06.2026, he answered “No” to Question No. 20, which required disclosure of any pending or previously instituted criminal, disciplinary or vigilance case

The Respondents subsequently issued him an offer of appointment dated 08.07.2026, subject to document and antecedent verification

At the time of joining on 15.07.2026, the Appellant answered “Yes” to questions in the Attestation Form concerning prosecution and pending court cases, and disclosed an affidavit referring to FIR No. 171/2020 under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 and 34 IPC

A second FIR, No. 21/2022, involving similar allegations arising from an ancestral property dispute, was disclosed later in the writ proceedings

The Respondents prevented him from continuing the training pending verification and subsequently issued a communication dated 04.08.2026 disengaging him from the recruitment process

The learned Single Judge dismissed his writ petition, holding that the subsequent disclosures could not cure the incorrect declaration in the Application Form

Whether the Appellant’s negative response to Question No. 20 constituted suppression or furnishing of incorrect information regarding pending criminal proceedings

Whether Question No. 20 was vague or ambiguous so as to excuse the Appellant’s failure to disclose the FIRs

Whether the subsequent disclosures in the Attestation Form and affidavit negated or cured the earlier incorrect declaration

Whether the Respondents’ decision to prevent the Appellant from continuing training and disengage him from the recruitment process was arbitrary or otherwise liable to interference under Article 226 of the Constitution

What directions, if any, were required to protect the Appellant’s future candidature following the disengagement communication dated 04.08.2026

The Court applied the principle that an employer is entitled to seek truthful and complete information regarding a candidate’s criminal antecedents in order to verify character and assess suitability for appointment or continuation in service

A candidate who is aware of pending criminal proceedings must disclose them when the recruitment form specifically requires disclosure of any pending or previously instituted criminal case; an incorrect negative declaration may independently justify action by the employer

The Court considered Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, which requires the disclosure/attestation question to be sufficiently specific and recognises the relevance of suppression of material criminal antecedents, but held that the principle did not assist the Appellant because Question No. 20 was clear and unambiguous

The Court also distinguished the timing of disclosure: a later disclosure, made after selection and issuance of the appointment offer, does not retrospectively cure an earlier incorrect declaration made during the recruitment process

The Court rejected the Appellant’s attempt to dissect Question No. 20 into separate clauses. Reading the question as a whole and having regard to its purpose, the Court held that the reference to a Public Service Commission, university or educational authority related only to disqualification from their examinations and did not limit the separate requirement to disclose pending or previously instituted criminal cases to such institutions

Since criminal proceedings arising from the FIRs were pending when the Application Form was submitted, the Appellant’s negative answer was incorrect

His awareness of the FIRs was demonstrated by the fact that he had obtained the disclosure affidavit on 15.06.2026, but withheld it until after the offer of appointment dated 08.07.2026

The later answers in the Attestation Form and the affidavit therefore did not eliminate the earlier suppression; the legality of the Respondents’ action had to be assessed with reference to the declaration made in the Application Form

Consequently, preventing the Appellant from continuing training pending verification and declining to proceed with his candidature was not shown to be arbitrary, perverse or legally infirm

It held that Question No. 20 was clear, that the Appellant’s negative declaration was incorrect, and that his subsequent disclosures did not cure the suppression

However, recognising the potential impact of the 04.08.2026 communication on his future employment prospects, the Court directed that the communication be treated only as disengagement from the present recruitment process, not as termination of employment, and that it carry no stigma of termination

The Appellant’s future candidature before Respondent No. 2 or any other employer or recruiting agency was directed to be considered independently, on its own merits, in accordance with the applicable conditions and disclosures, uninfluenced by the disengagement communication, the present judgment or the Single Judge’s order

Pending applications were disposed of and there was no order as to costs