Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar Pathak vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 16 August, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5090 of 2022
Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Pathak
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation And Water Resource Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shraddha Tripathi,Rakesh Devi Prasad Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Devi Prasad Kumar, alongwith Smt. Shraddha Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner applied for Combined Junior Engineer (General Recruitment) Examination-2013, for the post of Junior Engineer in Irrigation Department under General Category as per notification published by Public Service Commission, U.P. on 24th December, 2013 for 2100 posts. The petitioner appeared in the said examination and was successful in the written examination and subsequently faced interview board, which was held on 17.12.2019. Even in the interview the petitioner was successful and in the final list of successful candidates his name figures at Serial No. 213.
3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently all the remaining successful candidates, except to petitioner, were given appointment letters in the month of November, 2020. The petitioner claim that he being selected candidate has right to be appointed considering the fact that candidates who are lower in the merit list have been appointed.
4. It is next submitted that the petitioner has disclosed the fact of pendency of criminal cases against him and details whereof were given by him in the attestation form which has been annexed alongwith the writ petition, where the details of five criminal cases pending against the petitioner have been given being Case Crime No. 279/14 (ST No. 92/15), U/S 147, 148, 323, 308, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Pura Kalandar, District - Ayodhya; Case Crime No. 470/14 (Criminal Case No. 18/15) U/S 174A I.P.C., Police Station - Purakalandar, District - Ayodhya; Case Crime No. 44/15 (Criminal Case No. 11765/15), U/S 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Kotwali, District - Ayodhya; Case Crime No. 426/14 (Criminal Case No. 3338/15), U/S 147, 148, 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Runahi, District - Fiazabad and Case Crime No. 119A/15 (Criminal Case No. 19509/16, U/S 147, 148, 149, 323, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Raunahi, District - Faizabad.
5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have not passed any specific order holding him in-eligible for being appointed on the post of Junior Engineer, but in the most illegal and arbitrary manner have withheld his appointment letter. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, where the Apex Court while considering similar facts, in para 30 sub clause (3) and (6), has observed as under :-
"30. (3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
(6) In case when fact has been trughfully 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."
6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in any view of the matter the respondents are required to take decision with regard to his suitability for being appointed as a Junior Engineer taking into account the criminal cases pending against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer to the suitable direction to the to pass necessary orders with regard to appointment of the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra).
7. Learned Standing Counsel also does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner for suitable direction to the respondents to take decision with regard to appointment of the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer.
8. In the light of above, the writ petitioner is disposed of with direction to the respondent no. 3 - - Chief Engineer (Karmik-7) Adhishthan-7 Anubhag, Irrigation and Water Resources Department, Lucknow / competent authority, to take decision with regard to the suitability of the petitioner for being appointed on the post of Junior Engineer considering the criminal cases pending against him in the light of judgment of Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), expeditiously, say within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
9. With above, directions the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.8.2022
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
