Complete disclosure in applications for govt job basic requirement: SC
The Supreme Court on Monday said proper and complete disclosure in applications for Government employment was not a simple procedural formality, but a basic requirement rooted in fairness, integrity and public trust.
The observations came from a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh, which allowed an appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh Government against a May 2025 order of a division bench of the Allahabad High Court.
The high court’s division bench had affirmed its single judge order, which had allowed the plea filed by a man challenging the cancellation of his appointment as ‘Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari’.
The apex court noted the authority had cancelled his appointment on the ground that he had concealed information about the pendency of two criminal proceedings against him at the relevant time.
“It is also a settled position in law that sympathy cannot supplant law. As such, while we acknowledge that loss of a government job is not an easy loss to come to terms with, at the same time, awareness of consequences is a necessary component of actions,” the bench said, while allowing the appeal.
It said Government posts attract hundreds, and often thousands, of applicants for a single vacancy, each competing under the same Stated conditions, and scrupulous vetting of every candidate becomes imperative and essential to ensure a level playing field and to protect the credibility of the selection process.
The bench observed that when an applicant withholds information about criminal antecedents, it undermines this process by depriving the appointing authority of the opportunity to make a fully informed assessment of suitability. “Proper and complete disclosure in applications for Government employment is not a simple procedural formality, but a basic requirement rooted in fairness, integrity, and public trust,” the bench said.
It said that while the law recognises that non-disclosure, depending on the nature of the offence and the surrounding circumstances, may not invariably be fatal to a candidature, it remains a serious lapse.
The bench noted that the gravity is significantly compounded when the non-disclosure is repeated, as it ceases to be accidental or inadvertent and instead reflects deliberate concealment. “Such strikes at the core of trust reposed in candidates for public service, where honesty and transparency are indispensable attributes, and justify a far stricter view by the authorities,” it said. The bench noted the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission had issued an advertisement in March 2021 notifying the examination for recruitment of‘SamikshaAdhikari/Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari’.
It said the man was selected and he was asked to furnish an attestation form and subsequently a verification form. The bench said a particular question was put to the applicants in both forms, whether any criminal cases were pending against them. It said that both times, the man had answered in the negative and later, it was found that two cases were pending against him.
After the authority cancelled his appointment, he moved to the High Court.
The high court’s single judge had allowed the petition against cancellation, taking note of the facts that the district magistrate had found no legal impediment in his appointment and the man was not chargesheeted in the offences alleged against him.
The high court had also noted that subsequently, the man had himself disclosed the cases against him.
In its order, the apex court said acquittal or dropping of proceedings against him were subsequent developments and at the time of filling up the forms, the investigation in the case was active. “It cannot be disputed that at the relevant time, he submitted incorrect and false information,” the bench said.
It also referred to a maxim in law, which means “the law may be harsh, but the law is law”. The bench said his subsequent acquittal or the fact that he attempted to come clean about the suppression of facts cannot accrue to his benefit.
