Vijai Shanker Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

The present petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 28.4.2003 and for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the Petitioner to complete the training and for appointing him on the post of Constable in the PAC.

The Petitioner in pursuance to the advertisement published in the daily news paper ''Dainik Jagran'' for appointment on the post of Constable in the PAC applied for the post. The Petitioner was eligible in accordance with the parameters laid down by the opposite parties in the said advertisement. He was thereafter put to physical test in the year 2001 and thereafter he appeared in the written examination in which he was declared successful. Thereafter interview was held and the name of the Petitioner found place in the list of successful candidates along with others. Various persons along with the Petitioner were called for sending in the training in accordance with the result published in the month of April 2003. The Petitioner along with other successful candidates reported in the office of the Respondent No. 2 and also filled up the required form and submitted the same. Thereafter the Petitioner was informed by the office that his case could not be considered for sending him to training after verification there was a report regarding lodging of criminal case under Sections 504/506 IPC against him. The Petitioner tried to convince the authorities that FIR under Sections 504/506 IPC was never lodged against him neither he was arrested nor inquired by any of the investigating officer. He informed that final report was submitted as incident had taken place during the school days when he was a student and such petty dispute do arise during the course of studies and if any such FIR was lodged, the final report was submitted in the said matter in the year 2003. The Petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition claiming that he was a regularly selected candidate and registration of such criminal case do not come in the way of the Petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was never charged under the aforesaid sections neither he was arrested at any point of time and nor he was questioned by the investigating officer at any point of time, therefore, it never came to his knowledge that an FIR was lodged against him and even thereafter when the Petitioner inquired about the pendency of the said criminal case, he came to know that final report has been submitted in the year 2003 and was accepted by the C.J.M. concerned. Submission is that after acceptance of final report, the criminal case, if any, stood washed out and the offence registered against the Petitioner can not be read against him as final report has been submitted and accepted by the learned C.J.M. concerned. Apart from it, the submission is that it is a petty offence which had occurred during study of the Petitioner in the school and sections are also very trivial in nature which do not, in any manner, can be treated moral turpitude and in consequence thereof the Petitioner can not be said to be disqualified for being appointed on the post of Constable in the PAC. It is also submitted that in the application form there was no column which compelled him to disclose that criminal case was lodged against him. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also places reliance upon a judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 4683 (S/S) of 2010 (Lucknow Bench ) Satya Prakash Pandey v. Union of India and Ors.

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the Petitioner has not disclosed the required information in the affidavit as demanded from him, therefore, he has concealed the material facts regarding pendency of the criminal case against him. He further submits that the Petitioner has rightly been not given appointment and has been declared disqualified and the appointment of the Petitioner suffers from illegality and infirmity.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

The Petitioner applied in pursuance to the advisement published in the daily news paper and after due process he was selected i.e. after physical and written examination and after facing interview. The Petitioner''s selection was cancelled at the time when various persons selected along with the Petitioner were sent for training where the Petitioner was informed that a criminal case against him was lodged and he can not be sent for training. The Petitioner thereafter inquired into the matter and found that one case under Sections 504/506 IPC was registered against him. A specific averment has been made that the Petitioner has never been questioned at any point of time by the investigating officer and final report was submitted. Once final report was submitted the stigma can not be attributed to the Petitioner and it shall be presumed that the offence registered against the Petitioner was not in existence. There was no column in the application form of such clarity which could have compelled the Petitioner to disclose the aforesaid information that final report has been submitted in the matter. Once the form of the opposite parties itself was silent in this regard and the requirement was not in those specific term as to whether any criminal case has been registered against him and whether final report has been submitted or not. As a lay man, the Petitioner is supposed to understand that if final report has been submitted and the person is acquitted of the criminal charge and the said criminal case will not come in the way of the Petitioner. Therefore, the candidature of the Petitioner can not be faulted, in any manner, on this score that a criminal case was registered against him. The opposite parties are reading only one part of the episode that a criminal case was registered against the Petitioner and the other side that final report was submitted in the matter is being ignored. There was no such column in the application form to disclose such information at the time of filling of the form. Once there is no requirement, the Petitioner can not be faulted in not disclosing that a final report was submitted in the case registered against him.

Apart from it, the offence was of the trivial nature and during study in the school days such petty offence, if registered, the Petitioner can not be disqualified corroborated with the facts that final report was submitted. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the case of Satya Prakash Pandey (supra) also come to his aid and the same has to be relied upon as argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner for accepting the tenor of the aforesaid judgment.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 28.4.2003. The opposite parties are directed to allow the Petitioner to complete the training and employ him in consequence thereof. However, it is made clear that the Petitioner shall not be entitled for any back wages.