Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112497 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9491 of 2025 Petitioner :- Anuj Kumar Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anura Singh,Atipriya Gautam,Shyam Sharan Shrivastava,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anura Singh, 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 for not sending petitioner for training 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 final report has been submitted by the police proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 0145 of 2025 under Section 351(3) BNS P.S. Noorpur District Bijnor. It is thus argued that since final report has been submitted and accepted against the petitioner and charge sheet has been filed only against co-accused Sachin in 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/ respondent concerned 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 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. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Nadeem Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad