VIPIN KUMAR KUREELversusANNAVI DINESH KUMAR, SPECIAL SECRETARY, TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ANUBHAG

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5156 of 2024

Vipin Kumar Kureel
                                                                      .....Applicant(s)
                                        Versus

Annavi Dinesh Kumar, Special Secretary,
Technical Education Department Anubhag                                    .....Opposite
                                                                                Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Hemant Kumar,                      Pramod       Kumar
                                Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :


Court No. - 9
                 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. On 6.2.2024 while allowing the Writ-A No. 757 of 2022 the writ Court
had passed the following order;

     "1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the
     petitioner, Sri Nishith Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the
     University and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

     2. Petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by the order passed by the
     State Government whereby his candidature for the post of Lecturer (Civil
     Engineering) has come to be rejected on the basis of the verification
     report submitted by the District Magistrate, Agra. This order of the State
     Government dated 24.12.2020 is under challenge before this Court in this
     petition.

     3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner made an application to
     participate in selection process for the purposes of selection and
     appointment as a Lecturer (Civil Engineering) pursuant to the
     advertisement no.1/2014-15 issued by the Public Service Commission on
     16.05.2014. While petitioner made it successful to the merit list, he was
     required to furnish also an attestation certificate for which the last date
     prescribed, was 29.04.2015. It transpires that the petitioner was required
     to furnish self attestation certificate about his credentials at the time of
     filing up the application form pursuant to the advertisement and this self
                                                            CAPL No. 5156 of 2024
                               2


attestation prescribed form was filed by the petitioner on 25.04.2015 in
which in the column relating to criminal history he put a remark ' NO'.
After the selection result was published on 24.06.2020 there arose an
issue of verification regarding character of the selected candidates that
were recommended by the Public Service Commission for the purposes of
appointment which included the petitioner and in that process the
character verification certificate was also obtained in respect of the
petitioner by writing a letter to the District Magistrate, Agra by the
department concerned on 17.09.2021. It appears that the District
Magistrate, Agra sought report from the Superintendent of Police, Agra
and on the basis of the report furnished by the Superintendent of Police,
Agra on 23.10.2021, the District Magistrate reported back to the
department concerned that there was a case registered against the
petitioner under Section 498A, 322B/504/506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with Case Crime No.900 of 2019. It
is on the basis of this criminal history that the respondent-State authorities
have come to pass the order, impugned here in this petition.

4. The ground of attack basically is on the point that the verification was
not done as per the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 which requires
certificate as to the character of the selected candidates from the District
Magistrate and the District Magistrate, therefore is to such enquiry in the
matter in the first instance before furnishing the report as sought for. A
complete guideline has been prescribed under the Government Order
dated 28.04.1958 for the District Magistrate as to how to furnish report
and which clearly stipulates that it is not only the police who has to
submit the report but there has to be an independent application of mind
by the District Magistrate concerned to the effect that the act and conduct
as may have emerged out from the criminal case of the petitioner amounts
to such a moral turpitude that he would not be suitable for public
employment. Learned counsel has also placed reliance before this Court
in the case of Shivendra Kumar Paswan vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others
(Writ A No.17092 of 2021) decided on 03.01.2022.

4. Sri Nishith Yadav, learned counsel for the University submits that after
the Public Service Commission made a recommendation in the matter of
selection and so it was for the State to make appointment but first to get a
                                                            CAPL No. 5156 of 2024
                              3


verification report from the District Magistrate.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has sought to justify the order for the
reasons assigned therein and has referred to paragraph 9 of the counter
affidavit that basically reproduces the report of the District Magistrate
which does not certify the character of the petitioner.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having
perused the records, I find the basic issue that emerges out for
consideration before this Court is, whether the procedure prescribed for
under the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 has been followed or not
in getting the character certificate from the District Magistrate in the
matter of appointment of the petitioner. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of Mooni vs. State of U.P. and 3 others (Writ A No.9300 of
2020) has clearly held that once the Government Order prescribes manner
and method now to furnish a report, thus without taking into
consideration the guidelines taken in the Government Order dated
28.04.1958, it is not open for the District Magistrate to just obtain report
from the police and submit the same before the authority concerned. In
the said case, the Court set aside the report and also the decision taken by
the authority in rejecting the candidature of the concerned candidate on
the basis of the said report and thus the matter was remitted.

7. Learned Standing Counsel though has sought to justify the order on the
basis of the verification report submitted by the District Magistrate but
could not dispute the legal proposition emerging out from the judgment of
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra). The basic philosophy behind
the principle laid down in the case was that a mere involvement in a
criminal case of a candidate should itself not result in cancelling the
candidature and atleast there has to be some application of mind and in
that process the candidate may be heard also.

8. In the present case, the case of the petitioner stands on a better footing
for the reason that at the time when the petitioner had applied for the post
in question and submitted his self attestation form, there was no criminal
history to his credit and, therefore, there was no occasion for the
petitioner to have furnished such information. Thus, the remarks were
absolutely correct and justified one. However, during the pendency of
                                                           CAPL No. 5156 of 2024
                               4


selection process the petitioner got implicated in a case, which is though
technically a criminal case but arises out of a sheer family dispute
between husband and wife. This may be for several reasons but there is
no public offence as such which could have led the authority to form a
view that there was inadvertent moral aptitude so as to deny appointment
of the petitioner. To this effect, I may refer to paragraph no.38.8, 38.10
and 38.11 mentioned in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and
Others (2016) 8 SCC 471 that are reproduced hereunder:

"38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the
time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the
appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness
of the crime.

38.10.    For    determining       suppression   or    false   information
attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such
information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be
disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge
of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while
addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot
be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a
fact which was not even asked for.

38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi,
knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."

9. Very recently this Court has found in the case of Beer Bahadur Singh
vs. State of U.P. and 3 others (Writ A No.1392 of 2022, decided on
21.09.2023) this Court has held that mere involvement in the criminal
case may not result in the cancellation of the candidature of the candidate.
There has to be sufficient material so as to form a view that the act and
conduct of the candidate forms a moral aptitude to deny him appointment.

10. In view of the above therefore District Magistrate was required to
furnish a report in accordance with procedure prescribed and the
guidelines given under the Government Order of 1958.

11. Thus writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 24.12.2021
                                                                                                         CAPL No. 5156 of 2024
                                                                            5


                                              passed by the State Government is hereby quashed. Concerned authority
                                              is directed to get a fresh report from the District Magistrate who shall now
                                              this time furnish a report in view of the Government Order of 1958
                                              whereafter authorities concerned shall proceed in view of the guidelines
                                              mentioned in the Avtar Singh's case as discussed above."

                                    2. In paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the compliance affidavit filed by the
                                    opposite party it has been stated that on the recommendations, so made,
                                    after perusing the report, the District Magistrate, Agra had decided the
                                    representation of the applicant dated 21.3.2024 by means of order dated
                                    9.10.2024, copy of which has been brought on record as annexure No. 2
                                    to the compliance affidavit.

                                    3. As the order of writ Court has been complied with and claim of the
                                    applicant has been decided, no case for contempt is made out. Contempt
                                    application stands dismissed. Contempt notice stands discharged.



                                                                                               (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
                                    May 14, 2026
                                    Shekhar




Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad