2024 (1) TMI 1015 - HC - Indian Laws

Cancelling / revoking her candidature and recommendation for appointment to the Delhi Judicial Service (DJS) - petitioner s candidature for appointment to the DJS was cancelled on the ground that she had concealed the fact that a criminal prosecution/criminal complaint was pending against her, in her application form for the Delhi Judicial Service Examination 2022 (DJS Examination) - HELD THAT - It is settled law that suppression of material information or making a false statement particularly in respect of queries relating to prosecution and conviction would have a material bearing on the suitability of a candidate. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav 2003 (2) TMI 559 - SUPREME COURT , the Supreme Court had made it abundantly clear that neither the gravity of the offence nor the fact that the criminal proceedings had ultimately culminated in acquittal of the candidate, would be relevant in considering whether a candidate who has suppressed information while applying for the post was suitable for continuing as a probationer. In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner was being prosecuted at the material time. Thus, the petitioner was required to respond in the affirmative to any query requiring her to disclose whether she was being prosecuted. The petitioner s defence largely rests on the assertion that the information required under serial no.6 of the application form was not free from ambiguity. It is contended that the query is capable of being interpreted to mean whether the candidate had been arrested, prosecuted, and kept under detention or bound/convicted by a court of law. It is contended that the punctuation marks (commas) between the words arrest, prosecuted, and kept under detention were capable of being construed conjunctively - The suitability of the petitioner s candidature for being appointed as a DJS is called into question on the premise that the petitioner made a false assertion when she responded in the negative to the information sought at serial no.6 of the application form. Clearly, such measures would be impermissible unless the information sought is in unambiguous terms lending a high degree of certainty to the conclusion that the petitioner s response to the query in question was false. Pursuant to the order dated 03.11.2023 passed by this Court, Dr Amit George, learned counsel appearing for DHC had submitted a short note confirming the same. The note indicates that a complaint was also made in regard to the said candidate. However, DHC has not revoked the candidate s appointment but is awaiting the outcome of the criminal case. Concededly, no proceedings have been initiated against the said candidate for making a false statement in his application form. There is merit in the petitioner s contention that DHC cannot adopt a pick and choose policy whereby it proceeds against one candidate in similar facts while refraining from doing so in the case of another. The impugned communication cancelling the petitioner s candidature and recommendation for appointment to DJS, is set aside - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner's candidature for the Delhi Judicial Service (DJS) was rightly revoked due to non-disclosure of pending criminal prosecution.
2. Interpretation of the query in the application form regarding disclosure of criminal prosecution.
3. Consistency in the application of rules by the Delhi High Court (DHC) in similar cases.

Summary:

Issue 1: Revocation of Candidature
The petitioner's candidature for the DJS was revoked by the DHC on the grounds of concealing information about a pending criminal prosecution in her application form for the DJS Examination - 2022. The petitioner had responded negatively to the query about being prosecuted, arrested, or detained, which was later found to be incorrect upon verification.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Query in Application Form
The petitioner argued that she did not make any false statement or attempt to conceal information, as the query in the application form was ambiguous. The query asked if she had been "arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound/convicted by a court of law for any offence," to which she responded "NO." The court noted that the query could be interpreted in two ways: whether the declarant had undergone all those events or any one of them. The court found that the query was ambiguous and capable of being misunderstood, especially since the petitioner had disclosed the pending criminal case in her attestation form.

Issue 3: Consistency in Application of Rules
The petitioner highlighted that another candidate with a pending criminal case had responded similarly in the application form but was not subjected to the same revocation of candidature. The court noted that DHC cannot adopt a pick-and-choose policy and must apply rules consistently. However, since the court found the query itself ambiguous, it did not delve deeper into this issue.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned communication cancelling the petitioner's candidature and recommendation for appointment to the DJS. The court emphasized that for determining suppression or false information, the attestation/verification form must be specific and not vague. The pending application was also disposed of.