Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Pratap vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. ... on 31 May, 2024
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:41557
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4457 of 2024
Petitioner :- Mahendra Pratap
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy., Irrigation And Water Resources Lko And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Shailendra Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Prashast Puri, the learned counsel for respondent No.5. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Prashast Puri, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.5 is taken on record.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally.
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had appeared for the selection for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in terms of the notification dated 26.11.2016 issued by U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"). The petitioner claims to have filled in online form of the said examination on 18.01.2017. Subsequent thereto an FIR had been lodged against the petitioner on 19.11.2017. After declaration of the result, the petitioner had been found successful in the written examination. He filled in the verification form on 15.03.2023 wherein he claims to have disclosed about pendency of a criminal case against him. Subsequent thereto although appointment orders of the other selected candidates had been issued, appointment order of the petitioner has still not been issued.
4. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs Union of India: (2016) 8 SCC 471 more particularly para 38.6 wherein the Apex Court has held that where a fact of pendency of a case has been truthfully declared in the character verification form of trivial nature, employer in the facts and circumstances of the case in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. The contention is that once the petitioner has already disclosed about the pendency of a criminal case at the time of filling in the verification form on 15.03.2023 consequently it is the duty of the employer in this case respondent Nos.3 and 4 to take a conscious decision with regard to the appointment of the petitioner keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra).
5. Applicability of the judgment in the case of Avtar Singh (Supra) is not disputed by learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Prashast Puri, learned counsel appearing for the Commission.
6. Considering the aforesaid the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the claim of the petitioner for issue of an appointment order on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) considering the pendency of a criminal case against him and the fact that the petitioner claims to have indicated about the pendency of a criminal case while filling in the verification form on 15.03.2023.
7. Let a decision in this regard be taken by respondent No.3 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 31.5.2024
prateek
