Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 22.04.2026 vs Union Of India Represented By on 22 April, 2026
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
2026:MLHC:400
Serial No. 49
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 104 of 2025
Date of Decision: 22.04.2026
Sambhaji Suresh Thombare,
S/o Suresh Waman Thombore,
R/o Village-Ranjona, Post-Khandegaon,
Taluka-Basmath, Dist. Hingoli,
Maharashtra-431512 ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. Union of India represented by
The Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. Assam Rifles through its
Director General Assam Rifles,
Shillong-793010, Meghalaya
3. Director General of Assam Rifles, Assam Rifles,
Shillong-793010, Meghalaya ... Respondent(s)
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. S.K. Lamba, Adv. with
Ms. M. Sohmat, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with
Ms. M. Myrchiang, Adv.
Page 1 of 8
2026:MLHC:400
__________________________________________________________
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner had
applied for the post of Havildar (clerk) under the General category and
thereafter had successfully qualified in the selection process, and was
called for Detailed Medical Examination, wherein he was declared fit.
However, his name was excluded from the final merit list and his
candidature cancelled due to a pending criminal case under various
charges of the IPC and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act. The
cancellation of his candidature on this ground, vide the impugned order
dated 08.10.2024, has been assailed by way of this instant writ petition.
2. Ms. S.K. Lamba, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner applied for the post of Havildar (clerk) under the
General category and had successfully completed all four stages of the
selection process but when the final merit list was published on
18.08.2023, only 8(eight) candidates were selected for 10(ten) advertised
posts for Maharashtra and the petitioner’s name did not figure in the said
list. It is submitted that thereafter the writ petitioner had filed a writ
Page 2 of 8
2026:MLHC:400
petition before the Delhi High Court for directions for filling up the
remaining posts, which however was not pressed on the ground of
maintainability. The petitioner she submits, then filed WP(C) No. 348 of
2024, before this Court praying for filling up a vacancy that remains
unfilled, but however on the candidature of the petitioner being cancelled
by order dated 08.10.2024, on the ground of pendency of a criminal case,
then withdrew the said writ petition and instituted the same afresh.
3. The learned counsel has submitted that though the writ
petitioner had not disclosed the pendency of a criminal case at the time of
application, the same was duly informed when he had appeared for the
Detailed Medical Examination, wherein he had even produced the copy of
the FIR registered against him, and that the petitioner had also duly filled
up a Criminal Proceeding Registration form. As such, she submits it
cannot be held that the petitioner has concealed the fact that a criminal
case had been registered against him. In support of her submissions has
placed the following judgments:-
i) Ravindra Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 5902
of 2012
ii) Prashant Deep vs. High Court of Delhi WP(C) 1960/2019
4. Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Ms. M. Myrchiang,
learned counsel for the respondents in reply has submitted that it is correct
Page 3 of 8
2026:MLHC:400
that the petitioner had qualified all the mandatory tests, but as his
Character Certificate was found suspicious, though his name was placed
in the final merit list, it was kept on the suspected list. The learned DSGI
submits that the office of the Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, while
issuing the Police Clearance Certificate dated 14.06.2023, had remarked
that there was a registered offence at Hatta Police Station under Sections
353, 332, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 427 IPC and under Sections
3(2) (va), 3(2) (5), 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s), under the Prevention of Atrocities
against the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Act. Thereafter, he
submits, clarification was sought from the Superintendent of Police,
Hingoli on 17.04.2024, which was then confirmed by the said office on
04.07.2024. The learned DSGI has then submitted that the advertisement
against which the writ petitioner had put his application at clause 28
thereof, had categorically stated that in case the information furnished by
the candidate in the application form is found to be false at any stage of
the recruitment rally and even at a later stage, the candidature of such
candidate would be summarily rejected without any notice. Thus he
submits, it was on this ground that the candidature of the petitioner was
cancelled.
5. It is then contended by the learned DSGI that the cancellation
is not arbitrary but has been done as per clause 28 of the advertisement,
Page 4 of 8
2026:MLHC:400
and that moreover, the offences registered against the petitioner are not
minor offences. It must be remembered he submits, that the recruitment is
with regard to personnel in the Assam Rifles, wherein a rigorous selection
process is essential to ensure that only trustworthy and patriotic citizens
are selected into the force, which is responsible for the safety and security
of the nation. The learned DSGI has cited the case of Avtar Singh vs.
Union of India reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, in support of his arguments.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. From the submissions
as discussed above, the only point in issue to be considered is whether the
decision of the respondents to cancel the candidature can be held to be
arbitrary and liable to be interfered with by this Court. In the instant case,
a striking feature that in the advertisement calling for applications dated
20.01.2023, clause 28 has clearly stipulated as follows:-
“28. Rejection of Application. In case the information
furnished by the candidates in the Application Form is
found to be false at any stage of the Recruitment Rally and
even at a later stage, the candidature of such candidates will
be summarily rejected without any notice. Appropriate
action will also be taken against such candidates as per the
provision of law by registering an FIR with the Police.
7. On a perusal of the above noted clause, it is noted that it
clearly mandates the furnishing of correct information in the application
form itself. The fact that the petitioner did not disclose the pendency of a
criminal case in the application form is undisputed, inasmuch as, by his
Page 5 of 8
2026:MLHC:400own admission it was only at the stage of the Detailed Medical
Examination that the same was divulged. It is also noted that the
respondents while verifying the documents of the petitioner, his Character
Certificate was found suspicious as the Police Clearance Certificate, had
remarked about the existence of the pending case against the petitioner.
The respondents it is seen, had then sought verification after placing the
name of the candidate in the suspect list and once it was confirmed that
indeed there was a pending case, his candidature then was cancelled. As
such, in the considered view of this Court, by the operation of Clause 28
of the Advertisement, the petitioner by not disclosing the pendency of the
case in the initial stage itself, the cancellation of his candidature cannot be
said or held to be arbitrary.
8. In the decision relied upon by the learned DSGI i.e. Avtar
Singh vs. Union of India (supra), the Supreme Court in the matter of the
grounds of termination for furnishing wrong or incorrect information or in
suppressing materials information at Para-32 and 33 thereof, had held as
follows:-
32. No doubt about it that once verification form requires
certain information to be furnished, declarant is duty
bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of
material facts or submitting false information, may by itself
lead to termination of his services or cancellation of
candidature in an appropriate case. However, in a criminal
case incumbent has not been acquitted and case is pendingPage 6 of 8
2026:MLHC:400trial, employer may well be justified in not appointing such
an incumbent or in terminating the services as conviction
ultimately may render him unsuitable for job and employer
is not supposed to wait till outcome of criminal case. In such
a case non disclosure or submitting false information
would assume significance and that by itself may be ground
for employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services.
33. The fraud and misrepresentation vitiates a transaction
and in case employment has been obtained on the basis of
forged documents, as observed in M. Bhaskaran’s case, it
has also been observed in the reference order that if an
appointment was procured fraudulently, the incumbent
may be terminated without holding any inquiry, however we
add a rider that in case employee is confirmed, holding a
civil post and has protection of Article 311(2), due inquiry
has to be held before terminating the services. The case of
obtaining appointment on the basis of forged documents
has the effect on very eligibility of incumbent for the job in
question, however, verification of antecedents is different
aspect as to his fitness otherwise for the post in question.
The fraudulently obtained appointment orders are voidable
at the option of employer, however, question has to be
determined in the light of the discussion made in this order
on impact of suppression or submission of false
information.
9. With regard to the cases cited by the counsel for the writ
petitioner Ravindra Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors and Prashant Deep
vs. High Court of Delhi (supra), the same in the opinion of this Court
would be of no assistance to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the instant case
stands on a distinct footing and also the job applicants therein had been
acquitted from the criminal cases.
Page 7 of 8
2026:MLHC:400
10. In the circumstances therefore, the respondents having
exercised their discretion reasonably and objectively in cancelling the
candidature of the writ petitioner, no interference is called for and the writ
petition stands dismissed.
11. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
Meghalaya
22.04.2026
“V. Lyndem-PS”
Signature Not Verified Page 8 of 8
Digitally signed by
VALENTINO LYNDEM
Date: 2026.04.24 18:21:42 IST
