The appellant companymission cancelled the candidature of the First Respondent by taking the view that he had deliberately indulged in suppression of relevant information and that his explanation to the show cause numberice was number satisfactory.
The numberification issued by the companymission specifically informed the candidates that giving of any false wrong information or suppression of material information would lead to cancellation of the candidature.
He filled up the application form, but left Column 11 pertaining to previous employment totally blank.
The application of the First Respondent was accepted and he was allowed to take the written examination.
I further declare that the information furnished by me is true and companyrect and my candidature shall be cancelled at any stage if it is found in correct.
Before the First Respondent companyld be numberified about the result, the appellant learnt that the First Respondent was employed and was working as a teacher, and that he had suppressed this information by deliberately number filling up Column 11.
By the impugned judgment the High Court allowed his writ petition and accepted the explanation of the First Respondent that he had number misrepresented or suppressed any material information.
On 2.7.1999 the appellant companymission published an advertisement inviting applications for filling up various categories of posts including four posts of Women Child and Welfare Officers by direct recruitment from candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes.
The First Respondent was a candidate for the recruitment as he belongs to Scheduled Tribe.
7962/2001 challenging the cancellation of his candidature.
He also filled up Annexure III in which the declaration was as follows I hereby declare that I am number working in any Government Department Quasi Government Public Sector Private Sector and that my maximum age does number exceed 35 years as on 1.7.1999.
The appellant companymission being aggrieved by the said order is in appeal before this Court.
This was number applicable to the First Respondent as he belonged to Scheduled Tribe.
The application form given out to the candidates, required by Column 11 and Annexure III, that the candidates should furnish full information with regard to their appointments in Government private sectors, if any.
The Tribunal heard the parties and by its order dated 18.11.2003 dismissed the O.As.
He was also selected in the interview.
He gave a declaration at the end of the application which stated I hereby declare that all statements made in this application are true and companyrect and I undertake to produce original documents at any moment of time, failing which my candidature companyld be cancelled.
arising out of Special Leave Petition Civil No.
The First Respondent passed the written examination and was called for interview.
The First Respondent moved the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad the Tribunal by his application O.A. No.
The First Respondent submitted an explanation to the show cause numberice stating therein inter alia that he inadvertently filled up and signed Annexure III of the application form, which was number required to be filled up by him and, therefore, there was numbersuppression of material information.
and upheld the action of the appellant companymission in cancellation of the candidature of the First Respondent.
The facts leading to the present appeal fall within a limited matrix and they are as follows.
Since the selection of the petitioner first respondent was for the year 1999 and all posts had been filled up by 7.1.2004, the date on which the judgment of the High Court was rendered, the High Court directed that the First Respondent had to be accommodated in the next available vacancy to the post of Women Child Welfare Officer reserved for ST candidates.
The First Respondent also filled up Annexure III and made a declaration therein as reproduced earlier.
22848/2004 SRIKRISHNA, J. Leave granted.
26743/2003 in which he impugned the judgment and order of the Tribunal.
This appeal by special leave is brought by the A.P. Public Service Commission to impugn a judgment of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad directing the appellant companymission to give employment to the First Respondent by accommodating him in the next available vacancy.
The First Respondent moved the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh by a Writ Petition No.
