Shivraj Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 2427 of 2026

Shivraj Kumar Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health And Family Welfare Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

Health And Family Welfare Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prabhaat Kumar Tripathi, Rashi Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Utsav Mishra Court No. - 7

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶9

Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party Nos.1, 3 & 4 and Mr. Parth Bhalla, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Utsav Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2.

¶10

Under challenge is the order dated 05.12.2025 whereby petitioner's representation for issuance of appointment letter on the post of Junior Assistant in pursuance of Advertisement No.08-Exam/2022 has been rejected.

¶11

It has been submitted that earlier as well petitioner had filed Writ-A No. 13185 of 2025 which was disposed of vide order dated 13.11.2025 directing authorities concerned to consider petitioner's representation. Impugned order has been passed rejecting same.

¶12

It is submitted that a perusal of impugned order will make it evident that petitioner's representation has been rejected only on the ground of pendency of Criminal Case No. 601 of 2016 under Section 308 IPC, He has adverted to judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2016 SC 3598:(2016) 8 SCC 471 to submit that it was incumbent upon the authorities to have adverted to the conditions indicated in the said judgment prior to rejecting representation.

¶13

Learned counsel for opposite parties have refuted submissions

¶14

WRIA No. 2427 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that impugned order itself clearly indicates the aspect that admittedly petitioner is involved in aforesaid Case Crime number and therefore it was not conducive for issuance of appointment letter to the petitioner on a government post.

¶17

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, evidently the aforesaid aspect has been enunciated upon by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra) in the following manner:-

¶18

"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:

¶19

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

¶20

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

¶21

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

¶22

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may

¶23

WRIA No. 2427 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

be adopted:

¶26

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

¶27

38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

¶28

38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

¶29

38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

¶30

38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate

¶31

WRIA No. 2427 of 2026

¶32

4

¶33

subject to decision of such case.

¶34

38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.

¶35

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.

¶36

38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.

¶37

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

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

¶39

WRIA No. 2427 of 2026

¶40

5

¶41

Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances, it is clear that impugned order has been passed without adverting to conditions indicated in the aforesaid judgment. In the considered opinion of this Court, with regard to consideration of petitioner's representation it was incumbent upon authorities concerned to have considered the law enunciated in the aforesaid judgment and not to have rejected the representation only on account of pendency of criminal case.

¶42

The impugned order dated 05.12.2025 not being in consonance of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra) is therefore quashed by issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to the appointing authority to consider petitioner's grievance afresh keeping in view law enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avatar Singh (supra). Orders with regard to same shall be passed by the authority concerned expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the said authority.

¶43

Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs.

¶44

March 10, 2026 lakshman

¶45

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶46

Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shivraj Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivraj Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Dutt Bhatt Thru. His Next Friend/Father/Guardian Bhawani Dutt Bhatt vs U.O.I. Thru. Ministry of Defense New Delhi and Another

Chandan Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Shri Ajay Chauhan U.P., P.W.D., Lko. and Another

Vikas Kumar Jaiswal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Santosh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Manish Kumar (Constable , PNO-192434935) vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 2 Others