In a significant judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, consisting of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Nyapathy Vijay, upheld the decision of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which had ruled in favor of M. Koti Reddy, a candidate who was provisionally selected for the post of SCT Police Constable (AR) in Prakasam District but faced cancellation of his selection due to non-disclosure of a criminal case in his attestation form. The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh challenging the Tribunal’s order, reinforcing the importance of a contextual evaluation in cases of non-disclosure.
Background of the Case
The respondent, M. Koti Reddy, had applied for the post of SCT Police Constable (AR) in Prakasam District following a notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh government. Although his provisional selection was confirmed, the process was halted when it was discovered that Reddy had not disclosed his involvement in a criminal case in the attestation form, leading to the cancellation of his selection by the authorities.
The criminal case against Reddy was registered under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was connected to an incident that occurred in 2010. However, the case was later quashed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court on December 31, 2010, and Reddy was discharged by the concerned court.
Aggrieved by the cancellation of his selection, Reddy approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which ruled in his favor on January 19, 2012. The Tribunal directed the authorities to reinstate his selection and send him for training. The State of Andhra Pradesh then filed a writ petition challenging the Tribunal’s decision.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in this case centered on whether the non-disclosure of a quashed criminal case in the attestation form could justify the cancellation of the respondent’s selection. The petitioners, represented by Advocate M. Srinivasa Rao, argued that the non-disclosure was a valid ground for cancellation as it involved a criminal case, even though it had been quashed.
On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel, Sri Ramachangeswara Rao Kocherlakota, represented by Advocate R.S. Murthy, contended that since the criminal case had been quashed and Reddy had been discharged, there was no longer any criminal involvement to disclose. They argued that the non-disclosure was not material and did not warrant cancellation of the selection.
Court’s Decision
The High Court, after reviewing the submissions and relevant legal precedents, upheld the Tribunal’s order. The court emphasized the importance of considering the context in cases of non-disclosure. Quoting from the judgment, the court observed, “Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities. Each case will depend on the facts and of its own case.”
The court noted that the criminal case against Reddy had been quashed before he filled out the attestation form, and the nature of the offense was not serious. The court further stated that the non-disclosure of such a quashed case, especially one that had been dismissed on technical grounds, should not automatically result in the cancellation of selection or employment. The court also referenced previous Supreme Court judgments that supported a more lenient and case-specific approach in such matters.
In conclusion, the High Court found no illegality in the Tribunal’s order and dismissed the writ petition. The court directed the petitioners to complete the process of Reddy’s appointment within two months from the date of the judgment.
Also Read
Key Observations
The court’s ruling underscored the principle that “suppression of ‘material’ information presupposes that what is suppressed matters, not every technical or trivial matter.” The judgment also highlighted that “a person who has suppressed material information cannot claim an unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily.”
