Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 15 December, 2022
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 43
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 381 of 2022
Applicant :- Anil Kumar Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh,Sandeep Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Application for review of the judgment dated 18.1.2019, passed by this Court in Special Appeal No.34 of 2019, has been filed by the applicant/appellant, whose claim for appointment to the post of Constable was rejected by the learned Single Judge after noticing that he suppressed the pendency of criminal proceedings against him while submitting affidavit before the authorities. The special appeal thereafter was filed, which too was dismissed on 18.1.2019 after noticing that the suppression on part of the applicant/appellant was not explained. This Court also noticed that the conduct of appellant in suppressing the pendency of criminal case clearly disentitled him to grant of appointment in a disciplined force.
The applicant/appellant has essentially relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India and another, passed in Civil Appeal No. 3574 of 2002, decided on 2.5.2022, to submit that the applicant has subsequently been acquitted in one of the cases and in other case the prosecution itself has been withdrawn. Submission is that in such circumstances the candidature of applicant for appointment to the post in question is liable to be considered.
Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, contends that there is no error apparent on face of the record and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case.
Having examined the contentions urged we find that in Pawan Kumar (supra) the applicant prior to filing of affidavit before the authorities had been proceeded with by the State in a criminal case, which ultimately resulted in his acquittal. It was in that context that the Court observed that mere non-disclosure of institution of such proceedings was not fatal to the claim for appointment as the proceedings had ultimately resulted in his acquittal. Unlike the facts in Pawan Kumar (supra) the criminal proceedings against the present applicant was pending and he submitted a false affidavit and the mere fact that subsequent in point of time an order of acquittal has been passed would not absolve him from the accusation that he suppressed material facts. We thus find that there is no error apparent on the face of record. The proceedings for recruitment have concluded long back, and therefore, at this stage, we are otherwise not inclined to entertain the prayer made for review of the judgment.
Review application, accordingly, is rejected.
Order Date :- 15.12.2022
Anil
