A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONversusKONETI VENKATESWARULU AND ORS.

A                   A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
                                   v.
                   KONETI VENKA TESWARULU AND ORS.

                                AUGUST 30, 2005
B
                   [H.K. SEMA AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.]

         Service Law.

         Public Service Commission-Advertisement issued inviting applications
C for filling up posts-Application form requiring full employment particulars
     to be given-Selected candidate suppressing relevant information and making
    false declaration in application form-Candidate claiming bonafide mistake
     in filing up application form-Defence that mistake was inadvertent or
     inconsequential cannot be accepted-No Steps taken to inform commission
D   about the bona fide mis~ake-Jn the facts, held candidate guilty of suppresso
    veri and suggestio falsi and does not deserve public employment-Selection.

          Appellant commission issued advertisement inviting applications for
    filling up various categories of posts and the application form by Column
E   11 and Annexure III required the candidates to funish full information
    with regard to their prrevious employment, if any. Notification issued by
    commission specifically informed candidates that giving of any false I
    wrong information would lead to cancellation of candidature. Respondent
    No. 1 belonging to Scheduled Tribe and employed and working as teacher
    filled up application form but left Column 11 totally blank and gave false
F   declaration in Annexure III. Respondent No. l was selected but appellant
    commission on coming to know that he was employed and working cancelled
    his candidature after issuing show-cause notice on the ground that he had
    deliberately suppressed relevant information and his explanation to the
    notice was not satisfactory. Respondent No. 1 moved A.P. Administrative
G   Tribunal and the Tribunal upheld the action of the appellant commission.
    Respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition challenging order of the Tribunal
    which was allowed by the High Court on the ground that respondent No.
    1 had not misrepresented or suppressed any material information and
    directed appellant commission to give employment to respondent No. 1 in
H   the next available vacancy. Hence this appeal by the appellant commision.
                                        1050
     A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. KONETI VENKATESWARULU         ] 051

     Appellant commission contended that information regarding               A
antecedents of candidate are requirement to verify and cross-check
information to judge suitability of candidate for employment, and that
candidate suppressing relevant information and making false information
proves himself unfit to be employed.

     Respondent No. I contended that there was inadvertence but no
                                                                             B
malajide intention on his part while filling up application form; and that
Column 11 was concerned only with age concession and Annexure III was
intended only for candidates claiming fee exemption and were not required
to be filled by him as he was claiming them and therefore filling them
could not lead to any adverse consequences.                                  c
     Allowing the appeal, the Court

    HELD: I. As to the purpose for which the information is called, the
employer is the ultimate judge. It is not open to the candidate to sit in
                                                                             D
judgment about the relevance of the information called for and decide to
supply it or not. There is no doubt that the application called for full
employment particulars vide Column I I. Similarly, Annexure III contained
an express declaration of not working in any public or private employment.
The contention cannot be accepted that it was inadvertence which led the
First Respondent to leave the particulars in Column II blank and make        E
the declaration of non-employment in Annexure III to the application.
The application was filled on 24.7.1999, the examination was held on
24.10.1999, and the interview call was given on 31.1.2000. At no point of
time did the First Respondent inform the appellant commission that there
was a bonajide mistake by him in filling up the application form, or that    F
there was inadvertence on his part in doing so. It is only when the
appellant commission discovered by itself that there was suppresso veri
and suggestio fa/si on the part of the First Respondent in the application
that the respondent came forward with an excuse that it was due to
inadvertence. That there has been suppresso veri and suggestio fa/si is
incontrovertible. The explanation that it was irrelevant or emanated from    G
inadvertence, is unacceptable. A person who indulges in suppresso veri and
suggestio fa/si and obtains employment by false pretence does not deserve
any public employment. [1055-D, E, F, G, HJ

     Kendriya Vidya/aya Sangathan and Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav. [2003[        H
    1052                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
                                                                                        >
A   3 sec, relied on.

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5335 of2005.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 7.1.2004 of the Andhra Pradesh
    High Court in W.P. No. 26743 of 2003.
B
           Guntur Prabhakar and Ms. T. Anamika for the Appellant.

        Manoj Saxena, Amit Meharia, Debojit Borkakati, M.P. Meharia, G.
    Ramakrishna Prasad, Mohd. Khan, Dr. K.P. Kailashnath and Mrs. D. Bharathi
c   Reddy for Respondents.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           SRIKRISHNA, J. : Leave granted.
D
            This appeal by special leave is brought by the A.P. Public Service
    Commission to impugn a judgment of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra
    Pradesh at Hyderabad directing the appellant commission to give employment
    to the First Respondent by accommodating him in the next available vacancy.
    The facts leading to the present appeal fall within a limited matrix and they
E   are as follows.

            On 2.7.1999 the appellant commission published an advertisement
    inviting applications for filling up various categories of posts including four
    posts of Women Child and Welfare Officers by direct recruitment from
F   candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The application form given out to
    the candidates, required by Column 11 and Annexure III, that the candidates
    should furnish full information with regard to their appointments in Government
    I private sectors, if any. The notification issued by the commission specifically
    informed the candidates that giving of any false/ wrong information or
    suppression of material information would lead to cancellation of the
G   candidature. The First Respondent was a candidate for the recruitment as he
    belongs to Scheduled Tribe. He filled up the application form, but left Column
    11 pertaining to previous employment totally blank. He gave a declaration
    at the end of the application which stated:

                                                                                        ,,.
H             "I hereby declare that all statements made in this application are true
  A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 1•. KONETI VENKATESWARULU [SRIKRISHNA, J.J 1053


        and correct and I undertake to produce original documents at               A
        any moment of time, failing which my candidature could be
        cancelled."

     He also filled up Annexure III in which the declaration was as follows:

                                                                                   B
              "! hereby declare that l am not working in any Government
         Department/ Quasi Government/ Public Sector/ Private Sector and
         that my maximum age does not exceed 35 years as on 1.7.1999.

              I further declare that the information furnished by me is true
         and correct and my candidature shall be cancelled at any stage if it      C
         is found in-correct."

      The application of the First Respondent was accepted and he was
allowed to take the written examination. The First Respondent passed the
written examination and was called for interview. He was alsQ selected in the      D
interview. Before the First Respondent could be notified about the result, the
appellant learnt that the First Respondent was employed and was working as
a teacher, and that he had suppressed this information by deliberately not
filling up Column 11. A show-cause notice was issued to the First Respondent
calling upon him to show-cause why his candidature should not be cancelled.
The First Respondent submitted an explanation to tbe show cause notice             E
stating therein inter alia that he inadvertently filled up and signed Annexure
Ill of the application form, which was not required to be filled up by him and,
therefore, there was no suppression of material information. Annexure III was
intended only for candidates seeking fee exemption for un-employed youth
in the age group of 18-35. This was not applicable to the First Respondent         F
as he belonged to Scheduled Tribe. The appellant commission cancelled the
candidature of the First Respondent by taking the view that he had deliberately
indulged in suppression of relevant information and that his explanation to
the show-cause notice was not satisfactory.

       The First Respondent moved the A.P. Administrative Tribunal,                G
Hyderabad ("the Tribunal") by his application O.A. No. 7962/2001 challenging
the cancellation of his candidature. The Tribunal heard the parties and by its
order dated 18.11.2003 dismissed the 0.As. and upheld the action of the
appellant commission in cancellation of the candidature of the First Respondent.
The First Respondent moved the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh            H
    1054                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   by a Writ Petition No. 26743/2003 in which he impugned the judgment and
    order of the Tribunal. By the impugned judgment the High Court allowed his
    writ petition and accepted the explanation of the First Respondent that he had
    not misrepresented or suppressed any material infonnation. Since the selection
    of the petitioner-first respondent was for the year 1999 and all posts had been
B   filled up by 7 .1.2004, the date on which the judgment of the High Court was
    rendered, the High Court directed that the First Respondent had to be
    accommodated in the next available vacancy to the post of Women & Child
    Welfare Officer reserved for ST candidates. The appellant commission being
    aggrieved by the said order is in appeal before this Court.

C           The learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the
    photocopy of the application dated 24. 7 .1999 from which it is clearly seen
    that as against Column No. 11 the First Respondent has given no information
    whatsoever, leaving the column blank by drawing lines. He had put his
     signature and made declaration in the application which is earlier reproduced.
D   The First Respondent also filled up Annexure III and made a declaration
    therein as reproduced earlier. Learned counsel for the appellant commission
    relied on the judgment of this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and
     Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav 1 and contended that when information with regard
    to the antecedents of a candidate is called for, it is intended to verify and cross-
     check the information so that the suitability of the candidate for employment
E    could be judged. If the candidate indulges in suppresso veri and suggestio
    falsi, he proves himself unfit to be employed, all the more so, if he is to be
     employed in public employment. If the information as to the full particulars
    of employment was available with the commission, the commission could
    have checked the antecedents of the First Respondent with his employer and
F   ascertained the suitability of the First Respondent for employment. In any
    event, it had been made clear to the candidates, both in the advertisement
    calling for applications as well as in the body of the application itself that
    furnishing of false infonnation or its suppression was liable to result in
    cancellation of the candidature. The First Respondent, therefore, did not
G   deserve any consideration and the High Court erred in interfering with the
    order of the Tribunal.

            The learned counsel for the First Respondent, however, rejoins that
    there was no ma/a.fide intention in not giving the full particulars. He reiterated

H   1. [2003] 3 sec 437.
   A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 1·. KONETI VENKATESWARULU [SRIKRISHNA, J.} 1055


the content'ons urged before the Tribunal and submitted that Column l l refers      A
to paragraph 3( d) of the advertisement, which was concerned only with age
concession. Since age concession was being made available to ST candidates
under paragraph 3(a), there was no need for him to fill up the requirements
of Column l l of the application. He also urged that Annexure III was intended
only for candidates claiming fee exemption; since the First Respondent was          B
not claiming fee concession, the annexure need not have been filled by him.
The fact that it was filled by him wrongly could, therefore, not lead to any
adverse consequences. He, therefore, submits that it was pure inadvertence
on the part of the First Respondent and not malafides, which lead to the non-
disclosure of his employment status. ln the submission of the learned counsel,
this could not be a reason for the cancellation of the First Respondent's           C
candidature.

       We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for
the First Respondent. As to the purpose for which the information is called,
the employer is the ultimate judge. It is not open to the candidate to sit          D
in judgment about the relevance of the information called for and decide
to supply it or not. There is no doubt that the application called for full
employment particulars vide Column 11. Similarly, Annexure Ill contained
an express declaration of not working in any public or private employment.
We are also unable to accept the contention that it was iOadvertence which
led the First Respondent to leave the particulars in Column 11 blank and            E
make the declaration of non-employment in Annexure III to the application.
The application was filled on 24.7.1999, the examination was held on
 24.10.1999, and the interview call was given on 31.1.2000. At no point
 of time did the First Respondent inform the appellant commission that there
 was a bonafide mistake by him in filling up the application form, or that          F
there was inadvertence on his part in doing so. It is only when the appellant
commission discovered by itself that there was suppresso veri and suggestio
falsi on the part of the First Respondent in the application that the respondent
came forward with an excuse that it was due to inadvertence. That there
has been suppresso veri and suggestio falsi is incontrovertible. The
explanation that it was irrelevant or emanated from inadvertence, is                G
unacceptable. In our view, the appellant was justified in relying upon the
ratio of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra) and contending that a person
 who indulges · in such suppresso veri and suggestio Jfa/si and obtains
 employment by false pretence does not deserve any public employment.
 We completely endorse this view.                                                   H
    1056                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A           In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment
    .of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Tribunal.

            Considering that the First Respondent belongs to Scheduled Tribe, we
    refrain from imposing costs upon him, with the fond hope that the next time
B   he applies for employment elsewhere, he will be more careful and forthright.

    A.K.T.                                                       Appeal allowed.