HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5156 of 2024 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hemant Kumar, Pramod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Vipin Kumar Kureel .....Applicant(s) Annavi Dinesh Kumar, Special Secretary, Technical Education Department Anubhag .....Opposite Party(s) 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 2 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 3 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 4 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. May 14, 2026 Shekhar CAPL No. 5156 of 2024 5 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad