Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133522 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11264 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rakesh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Laxmi Kant Bhatt,R.K. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 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 cancellation of his candidature on the ground of pendency of criminal case. 3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had not disclosed about the pendency of criminal case as he was not having any knowledge about it but subsequently, he was acquitted in the case in the final judgment passed by the trial court on 10.07.2021 in NCR No. 199 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Balua District Chandauli. 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 can 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. Thus according to him if petitioner approaches the authority and the Court may direct 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. 3 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 earlier cancelling his candidature. 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. Cancellation of the candidature of petitioner shall abide by the final decision to be taken by the authority as directed herein above. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Deepika Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad