NEW DELHI: Whereas sympathising with a younger man from UP who will lose his govt job due to its adversarial order over his not declaring a pending legal case in opposition to him on the time of recruitment, Supreme Courtroom on Monday emphasised that sympathy can’t supplant the regulation as such disclosure just isn’t a easy procedural formality however a fundamental requirement for public service. “There’s a maxim in regulation to the impact that ‘ dura lex, sed lex’, which implies the regulation could also be harsh, however the regulation is regulation,” a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Ok Singh stated whereas quashing the order of Allahabad HC which had held that the non-disclosure was of “trivial nature” and his appointment couldn’t be put aside on that floor. “It is usually a settled place in regulation that sympathy can’t supplant regulation. As such, whereas we acknowledge that lack of a govt job just isn’t a simple loss to return to phrases with, on the similar time consciousness of penalties is a needed element of actions,” the bench stated. “Correct and full disclosure in functions for govt employment just isn’t a easy procedural formality, however a fundamental requirement rooted in equity, integrity and public belief. Govt posts appeal to a whole bunch, and sometimes 1000’s, of candidates for a single emptiness, every competing below the identical acknowledged circumstances; scrupulous vetting of each candidate turns into crucial and important to make sure a stage taking part in subject and to guard the credibility of the choice course of. When an applicant withholds details about legal antecedents, it undermines this course of by depriving the appointing authority of the chance to make a completely knowledgeable evaluation of suitability,” the bench stated. Whereas the regulation recognises that non-disclosure, relying on the character of the offence and accompanying circumstances, might not invariably be deadly to a candidature, it however stays a severe lapse. “The gravity is considerably compounded when the non-disclosure is repeated, because it ceases to be unintended or inadvertent and as an alternative displays deliberate concealment. Such strikes on the core of belief reposed in candidates for public service, the place honesty and transparency are indispensable attributes, and justify a far stricter view by the authorities,” it stated. Within the case earlier than it, the individual was appointed as Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari, however his providers had been terminated after it was discovered there have been two pending legal circumstances in opposition to him, which weren’t disclosed by him within the type. He approached Allahabad HC, whose single in addition to division bench quashed his termination, following which state govt moved SC.