Hiding your history while applying for government services could lead to disqualification from the selection process.
A woman aspirant applying for the post of constable in the Delhi Police learnt the same the hard way when her candidature was disqualified after it was found during the verification process that she had an FIR registered against her.
In February 2013, the Delhi Police had called for applicants to fill 522 posts of female constables (executive).
Anju Devi Jatav from Alwar in Rajasthan applied for the post, clearly mentioning in her attestation form that no FIR was registered against her.
After going through the physical endurance, measurement and a written test, she was declared provisionally selected, subject to verification of character and antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents.
However, during the verification process, the Delhi Police found that an FIR was registered against her in Alwar in a criminal case where the local court had convicted her and directed her to pay Rs 100 as fine.
In January 2015, her candidature was cancelled for trying to seek appointment by “adopting deceitful means through mala fide intention”.
In her appeal before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), it was contended that she was named as one of the accused persons in the FIR and the case was registered on a trivial issue between the families and neighbours. She claimed that she was roped into the issue because of family enmity. Jatav argued that the court had granted her the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, which shields her from getting disqualified from service even if she is found guilty of an offence.
{{/usCountry}}In her appeal before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), it was contended that she was named as one of the accused persons in the FIR and the case was registered on a trivial issue between the families and neighbours. She claimed that she was roped into the issue because of family enmity. Jatav argued that the court had granted her the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, which shields her from getting disqualified from service even if she is found guilty of an offence.
{{/usCountry}}The tribunal, however, said suppression of such information or making false statements amounts to ‘moral turpitude’. It noted that the purpose of seeking such information was not to find out the gravity of the offence, but to judge the suitability of the job seeker to continue in service. “It has a clear bearing on the applicant’s character and antecedents in relation to her candidature for selection and appointment to the post of constable (executive) female,” the tribunal remarked.
The tribunal dismissed Jatav’s plea, noting that despite clear warning given at the top of the attestation form that not furnishing information or concealing any fact would be treated as disqualification, she ‘deliberately and willfully’ suppressed fact of her involvement as an accused person in a criminal case.