The Supreme Court of India has set aside a High Court ruling and upheld the cancellation of a government appointment in Uttar Pradesh, holding that hiding criminal cases during recruitment strikes at the very core of public trust.
The court made it clear that even later acquittal or clarification cannot erase deliberate concealment at the time of application.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a 2021 recruitment drive by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission for the post of Samiksha Adhikari and Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari. Dinesh Kumar was selected and asked to fill out an attestation form and a verification form.
Read also:- Delhi HC Orders Removal of Bhuvan Bam’s Images, Refuses Early Finding on Personality Rights
In both forms, he answered “no” to questions asking whether any criminal cases were pending against him. However, police verification later revealed two pending cases - one relating to rioting and assault, and another under stalking provisions and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Although the District Magistrate later found him suitable and Kumar filed an affidavit disclosing the cases on his own, the state government cancelled his appointment. This cancellation was overturned by a Single Judge and later upheld by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, prompting the state to approach the Supreme Court.
Read also:- Rajasthan HC Quashes 21-Year Minimum Age for Contractual ANM Hiring, Restores 18-Year Eligibility Rule
Court’s Observations
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh took a strict view of the non-disclosure. The court said filling recruitment forms truthfully is not a technical formality but a basic condition of fairness.
“The giving of false information or concealment of material facts,” the bench noted, “undermines the integrity of the selection process and deprives authorities of the chance to make an informed decision.”
The judges stressed that the lapse was not a one-time mistake. Kumar had denied pending cases twice, despite clear disclaimers warning that suppression would lead to disqualification.
“Repeated non-disclosure ceases to be accidental and reflects deliberate concealment,” the court observed.
Read also:- Supreme Court Backs Decree Holder, Clears Way for Possession Despite Decades-Old Property Transfers
The bench also rejected arguments based on sympathy, age, later acquittal, or the District Magistrate’s opinion. Citing settled law, it said, “Sympathy cannot supplant law,” adding that consequences must follow conscious actions.
Decision
Allowing the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court restored the cancellation of Dinesh Kumar’s appointment. It ruled that since false information was given at the relevant time, later developments could not cure the defect.
All pending applications were disposed of with the appeal being allowed.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs Dinesh Kumar
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 196 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 20292 of 2025)
