AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Ramanathan, J.—In all these cases, the petitioners successfully passed the written examination and also qualified in the physical test. Thereafter, they were informed that their applications were rejected on the ground that they suppressed their involvement in the criminal cases in their applications as well as in the verification roll and therefore, they were not selected for Grade II Police Constable and the same is challenged in these writ petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though in the Full Bench judgment reported in 2008(2) CTC 97, in the matter of Manikandan and others vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board, Chennai and 4 others, the Hon''ble Full Bench held that as per Explanation 1 to Clause (iv) of Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a criminal case, can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police service and the failure of a person to disclose in the application form, either of his involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case against him would entitle the Appointing Authority to reject his application on the ground of concealment of material facts, irrespective of ultimate outcome of the criminal case, having regard to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Commr. of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar, in the matter of Commissioner of Police and others vs. Sandeep Kumar, 2011(6) CTC 440 (SC), in the matter of Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P & others and in the judgment reported in Jainendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. Tr. Prinl. Section Home and Others, in the matter of Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P. Tr. Prinl. Section Home and others, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court referred the issue, whether a person can be disqualified on the ground of suppression of particulars in the application form or in the verification roll in the matter of appointment to the Larger Bench, the judgment of the Hon''ble Full Bench of our High Court reported in 2008(2) CTC 97, in the matter of Manikandan and others vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board, Chennai and 4 others, should not be taken into consideration for rejecting the application and therefore, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Grade II Police Constable is illegal and is liable to be set aside.
The learned counsels for the petitioners also submitted that though in many cases, the petitioners were involved having committed offences under Indian Penal Code, they were acquitted and latter, the acquittal was modified into honourable acquittal and therefore, once the petitioners were honourably acquitted of the charges, no stigma is attached to them and therefore, the suppression of those cases, either in the application form or in the verification roll should not be put against the petitioners in the light of the recent judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court as referred to above.
Some of the petitioners counsel also submitted that some petitioners were not involved in the cases and their names were initially included in the FIR and thereafter, their names were omitted while filing charge sheet and therefore, those persons cannot be said to be involved in the criminal cases and therefore, the rejection of those persons cannot be amount to suppression of material facts.
It is also submitted that in two cases, the petitioners were Juvenile at the time of commission of the offence and they were also arrayed as accused and therefore, having regard to section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, they shall not suffer any disqualification, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law and therefore, they cannot be guilty of suppression of fact in the application form.
It is also submitted by the learned counsels for some of the petitioners that some petitioners were involved in the criminal cases under the provisions of Tamil Nadu City Police Act and the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, paid fine and some of them were also released under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence, it cannot be stated that they are having bad antecedents and they are guilty of suppression of material particulars, while submitting the application as well as in the verification roll.
It is also submitted that some petitioners disclose their involvement in criminal cases in the application form and in respect of some persons, at the time of submitting the applications, there was no case pending against them and latter, cases were foisted against them and they were also acquitted in all those cases and therefore, having regard to the fact that all the petitioners were honourably acquitted and they did not suffer any disqualification and therefore, the rejection of those persons'' application on the ground of suppression of material particulars in the application form as well as in the verification roll cannot be a ground for rejecting their applications.
Mr. A. Thirumurthy, the learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners submitted that having regard to the fact that the Hon''ble Supreme Court has referred the issue, whether a person suffered any disqualification or whether a person should be denied chance of getting employment by reason of suppression of involvement in the criminal case in the application form or in the verification roll to the Larger Bench as per the judgment reported in Jainendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. Tr. Prinl. Section Home and Others, , in the matter of Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P. Tr. Prinl. Section Home and others, till the Larger Bench decides that issue, the petitioners should not be denied the opportunity of serving in the police force and also relied upon the judgment reported in Islamic Academy of Education and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, in the matter of Islamic Academy of Education and another vs. State of Karnataka and others.
He also relied upon the judgment reported in Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another, and submitted that in that case, the Hon''ble Supreme Court dealt with the nature of offence and also the expression ''Moral Turpitude'' and held that unless the offence is of such nature, which can be brought under the caption ''Moral Turpitude'', a person cannot be denied the opportunity of getting selected in the police force and therefore, the order of the respondents in rejecting the application is liable to be set aside.
Mr. T.S. Mohammed Mohidheen, the learned Additional Government Pleader, who is appearing for some of the respondents, in these writ petitions, submitted that law has been finally laid down by the Hon''ble Full Bench of this court in the judgment reported in 2008(2) CTC 97( supra) and the Hon''ble Full Bench, after considering all the earlier judgments, including the judgments reported in Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another, in the matter of R. Radhakrishnan, vs. The Director General of Police and after considering the provisions of Rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 held that even though, a person was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt in a criminal case, he can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police force and the failure of that person to disclose in the application form, either his involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case against him would entitle the Appointing Authority to reject his application on the ground of concealment of material facts, irrespective of ultimate outcome of the criminal case and therefore, even though the petitioners were honourably acquitted by this court, having regard to the suppression of involvement in the criminal case, the rejection of their application is valid as per the law laid down by the Hon''ble Full Bench of this court.
He further submitted that as per Explanation (2) of Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 even if a person was honourably acquitted or the case, in which he was involved was referred as ''Mistake of Fact'', they were treated as ''not involved in a criminal case'' and they can claim right for appointment only by participating in the next recruitment and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim right of appointment in the present recruitment and they are entitled to participate in the next recruitment to be conducted by the respondents.
He further submitted that the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others, interpreted the Government Order, dated 28.04.1958 on the subject ''Verification of the character and antecedents of Government Servants before their first appointment'', wherein a duty was cast on the Appointing Authority to satisfy itself about the suitability of the candidate and having regard to that particular order, held that the Appointing Authority without considering, whether a person is suitable for the post, having regard to the involvement in the criminal case and without giving opportunity to the petitioners, rejected the application and therefore, set aside the order of rejection. He, therefore, submitted that the facts of that case reported in Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others, ] cannot be applied to the facts of the present cases and in these cases before this court, Rule 14(b)(iv) specifically says that a candidate should not be involved in a criminal case before police verification and as per clause 14(b)(ii), the character and antecedents of the persons should be such as to qualify him/them for police service and further in the verification roll, the petitioners were directed to give answer to column 15, 16 and 18 about their involvement in the criminal case or whether they were arrested or convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment or to pay a fine in any criminal or other offences and whether any civil or criminal cases are pending against them and in respect of those questions, against all the petitioners have given the answer ''No'' by falsely suppressing their involvement or the case filed against them for various offences under the Indian Penal Code and therefore, having regard to the suppression of those material particulars, they are not qualified to be appointed for that posts. He further submitted that in the judgment reported in Commr. of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar, , cannot also be relied upon by the petitioners as the facts of that case are entirely different. In the case of Sandeep Kumar, the petitioner disclosed in the attestation form about his involvement, though he suppressed the same in the application form and considering the same and also the fact that SLP was filed by the Commissioner of Police against the order of the High Court, the Hon''ble Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order of the High Court and therefore, the said case cannot be applied to the facts of the cases.
He further submitted that even though, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has referred the issue to a Larger Bench, that cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioners and till, a final verdict is rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the law laid down by the Hon''ble Full Bench of this court in the judgment reported in 2008(2) CTC 97 and other judgments have to be taken into consideration to decide the issue and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any right to the appointment and the rejection cannot be challenged as illegal.
The learned Special Government Pleader, Government Advocate and the Additional Government Pleader appearing for the other respondents also submitted their argument in the same line as submitted by the learned Additional Pleader, Mr. T.S. Mohamed Mohidheen.
On going through the factual aspects of each case, the cases can be categorised as follows:-
Petitioners disclosing the involvement, either in the application or during police verification;
At the time of submitting application, no case was pending and the case was registered thereafter;
Though, the cases were registered, subsequently the names of the petitioners were omitted from the charge sheet or the cases were referred to as ''Mistake of Fact'';
The petitioners involvement in petty offences like section 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act and section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act;
The petitioners were juvenile at the time of commission of the offence; and
The petitioners were initially acquitted by giving benefit of doubt, as the witnesses turned hostile and latter, in revision the petitioners were honourably acquitted and they have not mentioned about the criminal case, either in the application form or in the verification roll.
The petitioners in the following cases have disclosed, either in the application form or during medical test or verification roll about their involvement in the criminal cases and they come under the 1st category as stated above.
W.P.(MD) No. 2244 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2089 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2184 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2326 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2530 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 3514 of 2013-Not in the FIR & charge sheet
In respect of the following cases, no case was registered against the petitioners at the time of submitting the application and they come under the 2nd category as stated above.
W.P.(MD) No. 2864 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2908 of 2013
In the following cases, the petitioners names were omitted from the charge sheet, though they were named as an accused in the FIR and they come under the 3rd category as stated above.
W.P.(MD) No. 2403 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2544 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2309 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2367 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2523 of 2513
The following petitioners were involved in petty offences, like u/s 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act and section 160 IPC and they come under the 4th category as stated above.
W.P.(MD) No. 2504 of 2013 u/s. 75 TN City Police Act
W.P.(MD) No. 474 of 2013 u/s. 75 TN City Police Act
W.P.(MD) No. 2203 of 2013 u/s. 75 TN City Police Act
W.P.(MD) No. 2784 of 2013 u/s. 12 TN Gaming Act
W.P.(MD) No. 3807 of 2013 u/s. 160 IPC
Among the aforesaid persons, the petitioners in W.P. (MD) No. 474 of 2013 was let out under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The petitioners in W.P.(MD) Nos. 1290 of 2013 and 2430 of 2013 were juveniles at the time of commission of the offence and they come under the fifth category. In respect of rest of the cases, the petitioners were initially acquitted by giving benefit of doubt and latter, the acquittal was modified as honourable acquittal.
According to me, the petitioners coming under the 1st five categories as stated above stand on different footing from other persons. The petitioners coming under the 1st category have disclosed, either in the application form or during medical test or verification roll about their involvement in the criminal case and in respect of the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 3514 of 2013, his name was not at all mentioned in the FIR as well as in the charge sheet. Therefore, applying the principles laid down in Sandeep Kumar''s case, the petitioners coming under the 1st category might have omitted to mention about their involvement in the criminal case in the application form and latter, mentioned in the verification roll or during medical test and therefore, such persons cannot be held guilty of wilful suppression of fact. Similarly, the persons coming under the 2nd category cannot be held guilty of suppression of fact, as no case was pending against them at the time of submitting the application form or during verification roll. In so far as the petitioners coming under the 3rd category of cases, though their names were mentioned in the FIR, latter their names were omitted while filing the charge sheet or the cases were referred as ''Mistake of Fact'' and therefore, those persons cannot be said to have involved in the criminal cases, as they were exonerated from the charges after investigation. Therefore, those persons coming under the 3rd category cannot also be held guilty of suppression of facts. The persons coming under the categories 4 and 5, namely persons involved in Petty Offences, cannot also be denied of selection on the simple ground that they have suppressed their involvement, considering the nature of the offence in which they were found guilty. Further, the petitioners who were juveniles at the time of committing of offences cannot also be denied selection, considering the section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Therefore, in my opinion, the persons coming under the 1st five categories cannot be found guilty of suppression of facts, either in the application form or in the verification roll and rejection of those candidates cannot be justified.
In so far as WP(MD) No. 2358 of 2013, the petitioner''s candidature was rejected on the ground that he suppressed his employment in CRPF, though he resigned latter from CRPF. According to me, the case of the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 2358 of 2013 stands on different footing and his application ought not have been rejected on the ground of suppression of fact.
In respect of others, though some of the petitioners were honourably acquitted, considering the nature of offence, in my opinion, that makes no difference, as they have suppressed about their involvement in the criminal cases while submitting the application or filling up their verification roll. Therefore, the fact that the petitioners were honourably acquitted cannot be a ground for allowing the petitions as they have suppressed about their involvement in the criminal case in the application as well as in the verification roll. Nevertheless, we will have to find out, whether the application of such persons can be rejected on the ground of suppression of fact about their involvement in the criminal case in the light of the judgments referred to above.
As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the Hon''ble Full Bench of this court has dealt with the entire case law as on the date of delivery of that judgment and interpreted the Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rule, 1978 and held as follows:-
We hold-
(a) that by virtue of Explanation 1 to Clause (iv) of Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a Criminal Case, can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police service of the State and that the same cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified; and
(b) That the failure of a person to disclose in the Application form, either his involvement in a Criminal Case or the pendency of a Criminal Case against him, would entitle the Appointing Authority to reject his application on the ground of concealment of a material fact, irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the Criminal Case.
While arriving at that conclusion, the Hon''ble Full Bench has considered the case of T.S. Vasudevan Nair [1988 (Supp) SCC 795 and Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another, in the matter of Delhi Administration vs. Sushil Kumar, 2007(12) SCALE 539 in the matter of R. Radhakrishnan vs. The Director General of Police & others and distinguished the case reported in Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Another Vs. Dhaval Singh, . In the Full Bench judgment, Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 was considered in the light of the Hon''ble Supreme Court judgments and finally, the Full Bench held that suppression of particulars regarding the involvement in a criminal case, would entitle the Appointing Authority to reject the application.
Thereafter, the Hon''ble Supreme Court dealt with the same issue in the following cases:-
Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others,
Daya Shankar Yadav Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and
03 Commr. of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar,
Further, the Hon''ble Supreme Court also referred the issue to the Larger Bench in the judgment rendered in Jainendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. Tr. Prinl. Section Home and Others, , whether the suppression of particulars regarding the involvement in a criminal case can be a ground to reject the application for appointment in the police force. Therefore, having regard to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered, after the Hon''ble Full Bench judgment of this court, we will have to see whether the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners can be sustained.
As stated supra, in the Full Bench judgment reported in 2008(2) CTC 97, the Hon''ble Full Bench analysed the entire case law in threadbare and having regard to the provision of Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, the character of a person has to be considered for appointment for police force and held as follows:-
Therefore, we hold that the failure of a person to disclose his involvement in a criminal case, at the earliest point of time, when the Application form is filled up, is fatal. His subsequent disclosure, whether before acquittal or after acquittal, will not cure the defect. In any case, the subsequent disclosure may not have any effect upon his selection, since his case will then fall under any one of the 2 Explanations under clause (iv) of Rule 14(b) and make him ineligible for the current selection or for all future selection depending on whether the acquittal is honourable or otherwise.
In Sandeep Kumar''s case, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that though the applicant did not mention about his involvement in a criminal case, he might not have mentioned the same out of fear on the bona-fide impression that if he did so, he would automatically be disqualified and further held that it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape and therefore, a more lenient view should be taken in such matter and refused to interfere with the order of the High Court, allowing the writ petition filed by the applicant and dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Police. In that case, in the application form, the petitioner in that case, did not mention about the involvement, but in the attestation form, he disclosed the same and a show cause notice was issued to him and his selection was cancelled and that was set aside by the High Court and then by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. In that judgment, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has also taken into consideration the age of the petitioner and observed as follows:-
When the incident happened, the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age, young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.
In the case of Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others, as rightly submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the Hon''ble Supreme Court considered the Government Order, dated 28.04.1958 of the U.P. Government, wherein the following instructions were issued:-
The Rule regarding character of candidate for appointment under the State Government shall continue to be as follows:-
The character of a candidate for direct appointment must be such as to render him suitable in all respects for employment in the service or post to which he is to be appointed. It would be duty of the Appointing Authority to satisfy itself on this point.
While considering the same, it was held that the Appointing Authority has to satisfy about the suitability of the candidature, having regard to his involvement in a criminal case and without considering the same, the application should not have been rejected and set aside the rejection order.
In the case of Daya Shankar Yadav Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , the Hon''ble Supreme court interpreted the clause 16, in the verification roll, which is similar to clause 16 of the verification roll filled up by the petitioners and held after relying upon the judgment reported in R. Radhakrishnan Vs. The Director General of Police and Others, in the matter of R. Radhakrishnan vs. Director General of Police and Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen, held that the suppression of particulars regarding the involvement in the criminal case will render the applicant disqualified for appointment. Therefore, except Pawan Kumar''s case and Sandeep Kumar''s case, in all other cases the Hon''ble Supreme Court has taken a consistent stand that the suppression of particulars regarding the involvement in a criminal case, either in the application form or in the verification roll justify the rejection of the application by the authorities.
Nevertheless, the Hon''ble Supreme Court, having regard to the conflict views taken by the coordinate Benches of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of suppression particulars of involvement in a criminal case, in the judgment reported in Kamal Nayan Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, and Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others, decided to refer the issue to the Larger Bench. Therefore, the fate of the petitioners can be decided, in my view, on the basis of the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in those matters. In the event of the Larger Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court comes to a conclusion that suppression of such particulars in the application form or in the verification roll regarding the involvement in criminal case would not render the person disqualified on that account and directing the Department to take the merits of the case of each individual, considering the nature of the offence for appointment and if these petitions were dismissed at this stage, that would cause serious prejudice to the petitioners.
Further, there is a saying ''every saint had a past, every thief has a future. Further, the petitioners are involved in the offences under sections 323, 324, 506(i), 506(ii) & 325 IPC and such offences cannot be held to be serious and some of the petitioners were fined under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act and the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act. The offences are only petty in nature and as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in the judgment reported in Pawan Kumar''s case, those offences cannot be brought under ''Moral Turpitude'' and when those offences cannot be brought under the caption ''Moral Turpitude'', it cannot be advisable to hold that the suppression of those particulars in the application form a serious one. In this connection, the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court made in Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another, is relevant and it is as follows:-
Before concluding this judgment, we hereby draw attention of the Parliament to step in and perceive the large number of cases which per law and public policy are tried summarily, involving thousands and thousands of people throughout the country appearing before summary courts and paying small amounts of fine, more often than not, as a measure of plea-bargaining. Foremost among them being traffic, municipal and other petty offences under the Indian Penal Code, mostly committed by the young and/or the inexperienced. The cruel result of a conviction of that kind and a fine of payment of a paltry sum on plea-bargaining is the end of the career, future or present, as the case may be, of that young and/or inexperienced person, putting a blast to his life and his dreams. Life is too precious to be staked over a petty incident like this. Immediate remedial measures are therefore necessary in raising the toleration limits with regard to petty offences especially when tried summarily. Provisions need be made that punishment of fine upto a certain limit, say upto Rs. 2000/- or so, on a summary/ordinary conviction shall not be treated as conviction at all for any purpose and all the more for entry into and retention in government service, this can brook no delay, whatsoever.
Further, the Government has given pardon to hardcore criminals, naxalites, when they surrendered and undertook to lead a normal life respecting the law of the land and having regard to their reformation, those persons were given appointment in the police force. When such persons were given appointments in the police force, in my opinion, the petitioners can also be given appointment in the police force, considering their age and their age at the time of involvement in the criminal cases and the fact that they were acquitted on the ground that no offence was made against them and they were also honourably acquitted. Considering the fact that the offences, in which there were involved could not be characterised as offences, involving Moral Turpitude and such persons must be given chance to reform themselves, in my opinion, the respondents can take final decision on the basis of the judgment by the Larger Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Further, it is always open to the Department to take action against them in the event of their involvement in the criminal cases in future.
Considering the fact that the Hon''ble Supreme Court has referred the issue, whether a person can be denied a job for having suppressed his involvement either in the application form or in the verification roll to the Larger Bench, I set aside the orders of the respondents in rejecting the applications of the petitioners and depending upon the judgment to be rendered by the Larger Bench, it is always open to the respondents to take further action, even after their appointment in the police force. In other-words, the appointment of the petitioners into the police force is depending upon the decision of the Hon''ble Larger Bench of the Supreme Court and till a final verdict is rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, these persons should not be denied of their chance to serve in the police Department.
Therefore, the following writ petitions are allowed. S.No.
Case No.
W.P.(MD) No. 2244 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2089 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2184 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2530 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 3514 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2864 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2908 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2403 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2544 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2309 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2367 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2523 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2504 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 474 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2203 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2784 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2326 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 3807 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 1290 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2430 of 2013
W.P.(MD) No. 2358 of 2013
The following writ petitions are also allowed and the petitioners'' selection is subject to the final judgment to be rendered by the Larger Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court as per the reference made in the judgment reported in Jainendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. Tr. Prinl. Section Home and Others, and in the event of the Hon''ble Supreme court decides that suppression of involvement in the criminal case would disentitle the petitioners from getting a job in the police force, their appointment shall liable to be set aside at the discretion of the respondents.
In respect of W.P.(MD) No. 3257 of 2013, the petitioner was charged for offences under sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC and though, the petitioner was acquitted in that case, having regard to his involvement for an offence u/s 302 IPC, such a person cannot be considered for appointment as Grade II Police Constable and therefore, the rejection of the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 3257 of 2013 cannot be said to be unjustified and hence, that petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.