Allahabad High Court
Ghanshyam vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 30 May, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3423 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ghanshyam
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Up Civil Sectt. Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Yadav,Ashish Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
The present petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner had applied for consideration of appointment on the post of Constable at PAC through direct recruitment. He qualified all the examinations, however, the petitioner was not sent for training solely on the ground that a criminal case was pending against the petitioner being Complaint Case no.706 of 2012 under Sections 323, 452 & 506 IPC.
Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that merely because of the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner could not have been refused for being sent for training. He argues that the said proposition in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India - (2016) 8 SCC 471 as well as the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Dilip Kumar Mallick - 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 360 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the effect of the pendency of the criminal case on the appointment.
Learned counsel argues that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by means of an order dated 04.05.2022, a copy whereof is contained as Annexure - 4, wherein the authority concerned has rejected the representation of the petitioner on account of pendency of the criminal case i.e. Complaint Case No.706 of 2012. It is argued that the authority concerned has not considered the nature of the offences, which where pending against the petitioner and its consequent effect on the employment sought by the petitioner and thus, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), although referred, has not been considered in its true letter and spirit. He further argues that on the same day i.e. 04.05.2022, the petitioner has been acquitted in the said criminal case, a copy of the judgment acquitting the petitioner is enclosed as Annexure - 5.
A perusal of the order dated 04.05.2022 (Annexure - 4) shows that the judgment passed on 04.05.2022 (Annexure - 5) has not even been considered while passing the order dated 04.05.2022.
Considering the material on record it appears that the judgment of the competent Court passed on 04.05.2022 acquitting the petitioner could not be placed before the authority concerned, as such, the present petition is disposed off permitting the petitioner to file a fresh representation alongwith a copy of the judgment dated 04.05.2022 (Annexure - 5) and a copy of this order before respondent no.3 i.e. Commandant, 10th Vahini, PAC, Barabanki, who according to learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, is the appropriate authority.
In case such a representation is filed alongwith a copy of this order, respondent no.3 shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law after taking into consideration the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Avtar Singh as well as Dilip Kumar Mallick (supra) and the judgment dated 04.05.2022 acquitting the petitioner with all expedition, preferably within a period of three weeks.
Order Date :- 30.5.2022
nishant
