Allahabad High Court
Rajit Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 25 April, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RESERVED ON 19.4.2022
DELIVERED ON 25.4.2022
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3151 of 2022
Petitioner :- Rajit Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Singh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:-
"(A). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 2.2.2022 passed by respondent no.4 (Annexure-11) which is superintendent of Police Rural, District Varanasi.
(B). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner for training of Civil Police (Constable) as he has been finally recruited for that post."
2. The petitioner has earlier approached this Court by way of Writ-A No.313 of 2021 which was disposed of by the order dated 17.2.2021 and the same is reproduced herein below:
"Written instructions supplied by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi indicate that the District Magistrate, Varanasi in its letter dated 31.10.2020 has indicated about pendency of a criminal case namely Case Crime No. 309 of 2020 registered under Section 323/504/506 IPC in Thana Chabeypur, District Varanasi. The reason for rejection of candidature of the petitioner for selection on the post of Police Constable (Civil), which was conducted pursuant to the Constable Civil Police & Constable PAC Recruitment Examination 2018, was the criminal case registered in the year 2020. The date of lodging of criminal case/FIR is 24.6.2020 as indicated in the writ petition whereas the petitioner had given an affidavit on 18.9.2020 stating therein that no criminal case had been lodged against him.
The submission is that the fact of lodging of the FIR was not in the knowledge of the petitioner, inasmuch as, no summon had been issued nor he was called to participate in the investigation till the date of verification of the documents.
Be that as it may, the categorical averments in the writ petition have not been replied to the effect that the petitioner cannot be said to have concealed the information about the said criminal case.
There is no consideration to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471.
Relevant paragraph '38.6' is quoted as under:-
"38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case."
Considering the vague averments in the written instructions supplied today and the specific stand of the petitioner, the matter is relegated to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi for fresh consideration in the light of the observations in paragraph 38.6 of the decision in Avtar Singh (supra).
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of."
3. In compliance of the above order, the petitioner has filed a representation before the concerned authority. By the impugned order dated 2.2.2022, the said representation of the petitioner was rejected relying upon paragraph no.23 of the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the FIR, name of the accused is mentioned as Rajesh, as such, the petitioner (Rajit Yadav) was not named in the FIR. Though charge sheet was filed against the petitioner also but in the trial the petitioner as well as co-accused were acquitted mainly on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and there was a compromise between the parties as well. The order of acquittal was passed on 16.7.2021.
5. While passing the impugned order, the authorities have not considered that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal trial from all the offences and that his case was covered under paragraph 38.1 of the decision in the case of Avtar Singh (supra). Therefore, the petitioner has prayed that this Court may direct the respondents to appoint him on the post of Civil Police (Constable) as his case squarely falls under paragraph 38.6 of the decision in Avtar Singh (supra).
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel contends that the petitioner has failed to disclose that charge sheet was filed against him when he filed his attestation form, however, counsel has not disputed that in the trial petitioner has already been acquitted and said aspect was not considered in view of para 38.6 of Avtar Singh (Supra).
7. Heard Mr. Kamal Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner stands acquitted from all the offences by the judgment and order dated 16.7.2021 passed by the learned trial court. Taking note of the judgment passed by the Honble Apex Court in Avtar Singh (supra) as well as judgment passed by this Court in Writ-A No.4577 of 2019, Sonu Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, decided on 8.1.2021 and applying principle mentioned in Avtar Singh (supra) that petitioner was acquitted for all the offences under Sections 323,504,506 IPC, which are trivial in nature and it would not have rendered the petitioner unfit for post in question see para 38.4.1 of Avtar Singh (supra), therefore, the petitioner can be appointed on the post concern.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner squarely falls under the principles enumerated in paragraph 38.6 as well as in 38.4.1 of the decision in Avtar Singh (supra). The petitioner has already been acquitted from the criminal case which was otherwise trivial in nature, therefore, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Civil Police (Constable) in view of paragraph 38.6 and 38.4.1 of the decision in Avtar Singh (supra).
10. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated order dated 2.2.2022 passed by respondent no.4 (Annexure-11) is set-aside and the respondents are directed to take further steps to appoint the petitioner on the post of Civil Police (Constable), preferably within a period of eight weeks from today.
Order Date :-25.4.2022
M. Tarik
