Sh. Vinod Kumar vs Commissioner of Police and Another

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The petition impugns the order dated 31.05.2011 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi dismissing the O.A. No. 2265/2010 u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 preferred by the petitioner.

The petitioner had applied in the recruitment drive of the year 2007 for the post of Constable (Executive) and was provisionally selected. After he had filled up the application form, he was accused of offences under Sections 143, 323, 321 & 427 of the IPC and FIR No. 107/2007 dated 01.07.2007 of Police Station Madan, District Alwar, Rajasthan was registered. The petitioner however while filling up the Attestation Form concealed the factum of FIR having been lodged against him and rather expressly stated �mere khilaf koi abhiyog darj nahi huaa hai�. The petitioner though, as a result of compromise, was in the year 2008 acquitted of the other offences but was convicted u/s 143 of the IPC and was released on probation. Upon discovery of the said fact during verification, the petitioner was issued a notice to show cause as to why his provisional selection for the post aforesaid should not be cancelled and ultimately the said selection was cancelled.

The petitioner earlier preferred an O.A. No. 2054/2008 impugning such cancellation of his candidature and which O.A. was disposed of vide order dated 10.12.2009 remitting the case to the respondents to reconsider the same taking notice of the circumstances of acquittal of the petitioner of certain offences and having been granted probation of the offence for which he was convicted.

The Screening Committee of the respondents again considered the case of the petitioner and found, that the petitioner while being released on probation had been directed to keep peace and not to repeat such acts in future; that he had inspite of warning, falsely stated in the attestation form that no case was pending against him and he was thus not found suitable for the post of Constable (Executive).

Though this Bench has in several other cases coming before us has been consistently following the dicta of the Supreme Court in Commr. of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar, but the present case stands on a different pedestal. Here as aforesaid, the petitioner has been convicted of the offence u/s 143 of the IPC i.e. of being member of an Unlawful Assembly. Though he has been released on probation, but we find ourselves unable to interfere in the assessment made by the respondents i.e. as to who is suitable and who is not for the post of Constable (Executive) in the Police who are required to constantly interact and render assistance to the public. If the recruiting agencies are of the view that the petitioner for the reason of, having been convicted as aforesaid even though released on probation; and for the reason of having deliberately made a false declaration as distinct from mere suppression, is not suitable for the said post, it is not for this Court to interfere in the same. It has been repeatedly held that the Courts cannot interfere in the selection process. The Apex Court in Sandeep Kumar (supra) and this Bench following the same, though has been interfering with the selection process but those were the cases where the applicants had not been convicted. Here the matter has been considered by the appropriate authorities of the respondents not once but twice as aforesaid and we are not inclined to thrust the petitioner on the un-wanting respondents and which alone may instill a false feeling of confidence in the petitioner and may be detrimental to his functioning in the respondent''s department.

We thus find ourselves unable to interfere in the exercise of powers of judicial review in the order of the Tribunal. Moreover as aforesaid nearly four years have elapsed. The petitioner is thus not entitled to any relief. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.