Sohan vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 3096 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 24
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25972 of 2016
 
Petitioner :- Sohan
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam,Mohammad Fahad
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 

Case of the petitioner is that  the petitioner applied for the post of Sub-Inspector in the Uttar-Pradesh Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) and Platoon Commander (PAC) Joint Examination-2011; he belongs to SC (Male category) and  was finally selected in all the stages of selection. Grievance is that the Respondent Authorities are not giving appointment to the petitioner and are not sending him for necessary training.The petitioner has obtained  307.9167 marks under the S.C (Male) Category and his result was declared on the  official  web-site of the Police Recruitment and Promotion Board on 25/6/2015, and he has been declared as selected candidate in the Final Select List however, Authorities  are not giving him appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 19.5.2011.

It was further pointed out that the petitioner is not being sent for training on the ground that a  N.C.R No.139 of 2003 dated  16.6.2003, under sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C was registered against the petitioner and thereafter a charge sheet  against the petitioner has been submitted on 17.2.2004.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Commissioner of Police Vs. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 and Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, (SLP (C) No. 12091 of 2010, decided on 19.8.2011.

The matter needs consideration.

Learned standing counsel prays for and is granted two months' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter. List after expiry of the aforesaid period.

I have carefully examined the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the aforesaid NCR which is on record. The allegations are not serious enough to deny him the interim protection.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the ends of justice would be subserved by issuing a direction upon the fifth  respondent-Superintendent of Police, district Gorakhpur to permit the petitioner to undergo the training. However, in the event the petitioner is appointed, it would be mentioned in his appointment letter that his service will abide the result of the writ petition and at the time of the hearing, he will not invoke the equity.

Order Date :- 27.5.2016

G.S