Harjeet Singh vs Union Of India And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 831 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Harjeet Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 14 August, 2025

Author: Rajnesh Oswal

Bench: Rajnesh Oswal

       HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                       AT JAMMU

                                                         Reserved on   07.08.2025
                                                         Pronounced on 14.08.2025

CJ Court

LPASW No. 31/2012
IA No. 48/2012
Harjeet Singh                                     ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

                     Through: Ms. Surinder Kour, Sr. Advocate with
                              Ms. Manpreet Kour, Advocate



                                      v/s

Union of India and others                                   .... Respondent(s)

Through:                             Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI


CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.

                                   JUDGMENT

Per Oswal-J

1. Pursuant to the Advertisement Notice dated 30.08.2006, the appellant

participated in the selection process for the post of JE (QS&C) and vide

communication dated 08.11.2006, he was directed to report to the office

of Chief Engineer, Pathankot on or before 15.11.2006 for issuance of

order of appointment. Simultaneously, the appellant was also directed to

produce the following original documents/certificates:

(a) Character Certificate duly signed/attested by a DM or SDM.

(b) Simple Verification form duly completed in all respect, in triplicate.

(c) Caste/Tribe/Category Certificate alongwith attested photocopies.

(d) Date of birth/Age Relaxation Certificate alongwith attested photocopies.

(e) Educational/Tech Qualification Certificates alongwith attested photocopies.

2. The appellant claims to have submitted the requisite

documents/certificates, however, appointment order was not issued in his

favour, which compelled the appellant to file a writ petition for

commanding the respondents to allow him to join as JE (OS&C) for

which he has been selected and issue appointment order in his favour.

The respondents objected to the writ petition preferred by the appellant/

writ petitioner by submitting that as per the police verification report

dated 20.11.2006 issued by the D.S.P, Sub-Divisional Police Officer,

Bari Brahmana J&K, the appellant has been debarred from participating

in all the examinations or selections to be held by the Commission for

Engineering Services for ten years with effect from 21.09.2001, as such,

he has been declared ineligible for the said post.

3. A supplementary affidavit was also filed by the respondents thereby

reiterating their stand taken in the objections. Besides, it was further

mentioned that in application form at Clause 12 para (h), the following

information was required to be disclosed by the appellant:

"Have you ever been debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission/Staff Side Selection Commission for any office examination Selection".

It was also stated that the appellant had concealed the fact of his

debarring by the Union Public Service Commission while submitting the

application form, as such, he was declared ineligible.

4. The learned writ court after taking note of the stand of the respondents

that the appellant had concealed the factum of his debarment by the

UPSC in his application form, dismissed the writ petition preferred by the

appellant vide order dated 29.03.2012, which is assailed by the appellant

in the instant intra-court appeal on the ground that UPSC had debarred

the appellant only for participation in the examination conducted by the

Commission and appellant was not aware of this order of UPSC.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. From perusal of the record, we find that the appellant was not appointed

by the respondents, as vide order dated 21.09.2001, the UPSC had

debarred the appellant from participating in all the

examinations/selections to be held by the Commission for Engineering

Services for a period of ten years. The appellant has not been able to

justify the omission on his part in disclosing his debarment by the UPSC

in the application form, more particularly, when Clause 12 para (h) of the

application form mandated the candidate to do so. Further, in the

objections to the supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant, it is

stated that the letter dated 08.10.2001 addressed by UPSC to the

appellant and placed on record by the appellant along with supplementary

affidavit clearly indicates that the appellant was having knowledge of his

debarring in selection process in the 2001 for ten years, whereas the

selection in question has been made in the year 2006.

7. The appellant has not been able to justify the non-disclosure of the

information, which he was otherwise bound to, in terms of clause 12 para

(h) of the application form, as such; we do not find the present case fit for

our indulgence.

8. We have gone through the judgment impugned passed by the learned writ

court and find that the same has been passed after taking into

consideration all the aspects. The opinion formed by the learned Single

Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by the writ

petitioner/appellant is unexceptionable.

9. In view of the above, the judgment passed by the writ court is upheld and

appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

                        (RAJNESH OSWAL)               (ARUN PALLI)
                           JUDGE                      CHIEF JUSTICE
JAMMU:
14.08.2025
Karam Chand/Secy
                        Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
                        Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No