Candidature cancellation overturned due to ambiguous application form query regarding criminal prosecution disclosure

Delhi HC set aside the cancellation of petitioner's candidature for Delhi Judicial Service (DJS) appointment. The candidature was cancelled for allegedly concealing pending criminal prosecution in the application form. The Court found the query regarding prosecution/arrest/detention in the application form was ambiguous due to punctuation marks that could be interpreted conjunctively rather than disjunctively. The Court noted DHC's inconsistent approach, as another candidate with similar circumstances faced no action despite also having pending criminal proceedings. The petition was allowed, and the impugned communication cancelling the candidature was set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner's candidature for the Delhi Judicial Service (DJS) was rightly revoked due to non-disclosure of pending criminal prosecution.
2. Interpretation of the query in the application form regarding disclosure of criminal prosecution.
3. Consistency in the application of rules by the Delhi High Court (DHC) in similar cases.

Summary:

Issue 1: Revocation of Candidature
The petitioner's candidature for the DJS was revoked by the DHC on the grounds of concealing information about a pending criminal prosecution in her application form for the DJS Examination - 2022. The petitioner had responded negatively to the query about being prosecuted, arrested, or detained, which was later found to be incorrect upon verification.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Query in Application Form
The petitioner argued that she did not make any false statement or attempt to conceal information, as the query in the application form was ambiguous. The query asked if she had been "arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound/convicted by a court of law for any offence," to which she responded "NO." The court noted that the query could be interpreted in two ways: whether the declarant had undergone all those events or any one of them. The court found that the query was ambiguous and capable of being misunderstood, especially since the petitioner had disclosed the pending criminal case in her attestation form.

Issue 3: Consistency in Application of Rules
The petitioner highlighted that another candidate with a pending criminal case had responded similarly in the application form but was not subjected to the same revocation of candidature. The court noted that DHC cannot adopt a pick-and-choose policy and must apply rules consistently. However, since the court found the query itself ambiguous, it did not delve deeper into this issue.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned communication cancelling the petitioner's candidature and recommendation for appointment to the DJS. The court emphasized that for determining suppression or false information, the attestation/verification form must be specific and not vague. The pending application was also disposed of.

---