Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112075 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9440 of 2025 Petitioner :- Naveen Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner, who was placed in the selection list against the post of Constable in Civil Police is aggrieved by the decision taken by the authority dated 18.06.2025 on the ground of pendency of criminal case. 3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that not only the petitioner has disclosed about the pendency of criminal case but even subsequently, he was acquitted in the case in the final judgment passed by the trial court on 19.06.2025 in Criminal Case No. 9185 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 279 of 2024, under Sections 333, 115(2), 351(3) IPC, P.S. Rohta, District Meerut. It is thus argued that since petitioner has stood acquitted from the criminal case and there is no criminal history to the credit of the petitioner, petitioner's claim for selection and appointment shall be considered in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others 2016 (8) SCC 471 in which vide para 30 (10) & (11) guidelines have been laid down. Petitioner approaches the authority and the Court directs the authority to revisit the matter. Para 30 (10) & (11) of Avtar Singh (supra) is quoted hereunder: "30.(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. (11). Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him." 4. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the competent authority namely the respondent no. 8 to revisit the matter of selection and appointment of the petitioner on the principles and guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh (supra) as quoted above. The authority shall not be influenced by the decision of the authority taken on 18.06.2025 impugned herein this petition and an appropriate decision shall be taken positively within a period of two months of presentation of certified copy of this order along with the representation as directed herein above. The order impugned dated 18.06.2025 shall abide by the final decision to be taken by the authority as directed herein above. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 IrfanUddin Digitally signed by :- IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad