Delhi High Court
Shailendra Singh vs Commissioner Of Police & Anr on 6 January, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.8138/2008
% Date of Decision: 06.01.2010
Shailendra Singh .... Petitioner
Through Mr.Pradeep Kumar Arya, Advocate.
Versus
Commissioner of Police & Anr .... Respondents
Through Mr.Anjum Javed, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner has impugned the order dated 14th July, 2008 in
O.A No.1326/2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi titled Shailendra Singh v. Commissioner of
Police dismissing his petition seeking cancellation of the order no. XII -
C(110)/2006/R.Cell(R-IV)/4th Bn DAP dated 14th June, 2007,
cancelling petitioner's candidature for the post of constable.
The petitioner had applied for the post of constable pursuant to
advertisement published in 2005. Before the petitioner could be
appointed as a constable, he intimated that he was involved in a case of
murder in FIR No.37/2006 under Section 147/148/149/302/307/452
of the Indian Penal Code. Later on the petitioner was acquitted in the
said murder case on account of benefit of doubt given to him, as the
material witnesses had turned hostile.
A show cause notice was given to the petitioner dated 14th June,
2007 seeking his explanation as to why his candidature should not be
cancelled. After considering his reply dated 2nd July, 2007 his
candidature was cancelled. The respondents while considering his reply
to show cause notice before cancellation of his selection to the post of
constable, had categorically noted that though the petitioner was
acquitted as the witnesses had turned hostile, however, at the time of
the incident the petitioner was in possession of `katta' which fact has
not been denied.
The Tribunal while considering the petitioner's petition for
quashing the order of cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner
had considered the nature of evidence and manner of acquittal which
factors were also considered by the respondents while cancelling the
candidature of the petitioner. Reliance had also been placed while
dismissing the petition on the decision of a Coordinate bench of
Tribunal and on the decision of the High Court in W.P(C)
No.6042/2005.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically contended
that there was no evidence against the petitioner of his involvement in
the murder case and consequently the benefit of doubt had been given
to him and he had been acquitted. Apparently since the material
witnesses turned hostile, therefore, there could not be any evidence
against the petitioner, which led to his acquittal, however, the fact
which had been taken into consideration by the respondents is that at
the time of incident the petitioner was in possession of `katta' which
fact had not been denied.
The respondents have considered the facts and circumstances
and the acquittal of the petitioner on account of technical reasons and
other relevant consideration and has decided to cancel the candidature
of the petitioner. The petitioner was not selected and appointed to the
post of constable and therefore, he cannot contend that he has right to
be selected and appointed as constable in Delhi Police. No malafides
have been alleged against the respondent in cancelling his candidature.
In these circumstances the decision of the respondent to cancel the
candidature of the petitioner cannot be faulted.
It is also not necessary for the High Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction to interfere in every case where there is violation of
statutory rights. For issuing a writ for any other purpose under article
226 of the Constitution of India, it has always been in the discretion of
the High Court to interfere or not, depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. In Shangrila Food Products Ltd. Vs Life
Insurance Corporation of India (1996) 5 SCC 54, the Supreme Court
had held that " the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India can take cognizance of the entire
facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders to give
the parties complete and substantial justice. The jurisdiction of the
High Court, being extra ordinary, is normally exercisable keeping in
mind the principle of equity. One of the ends of the equity is to promote
honesty and fair play.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to
make out any illegality or such irregularity in the order of the
respondents and the Tribunal which will entail interference by this
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
For the foregoing reasons the petitioner is not entitled for any
relief and the writ petition is without any merit and it is, therefore,
dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
January 06, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k'
