Delhi High Court
Sh. Vinod Kumar vs Commissioner Of Police & Anr on 16 December, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 16th December, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 8752/2011
% SH. VINOD KUMAR .......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Adv.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petition impugns the order dated 31.05.2011 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi dismissing the O.A. No.2265/2010
under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 preferred by the
petitioner.
2. The petitioner had applied in the recruitment drive of the year 2007
for the post of Constable (Executive) and was provisionally selected. After
he had filled up the application form, he was accused of offences under
Sections 143, 323, 321 & 427 of the IPC and FIR No.107/2007 dated
01.07.2007 of Police Station Madan, District Alwar, Rajasthan was
registered. The petitioner however while filling up the Attestation Form
concealed the factum of FIR having been lodged against him and rather
expressly stated "mere khilaf koi abhiyog darj nahi huaa hai". The petitioner
though, as a result of compromise, was in the year 2008 acquitted of the
other offences but was convicted under Section 143 of the IPC and was
released on probation. Upon discovery of the said fact during verification,
the petitioner was issued a notice to show cause as to why his provisional
selection for the post aforesaid should not be cancelled and ultimately the
said selection was cancelled.
3. The petitioner earlier preferred an O.A. No.2054/2008 impugning
such cancellation of his candidature and which O.A. was disposed of vide
order dated 10.12.2009 remitting the case to the respondents to reconsider
the same taking notice of the circumstances of acquittal of the petitioner of
certain offences and having been granted probation of the offence for which
he was convicted.
4. The Screening Committee of the respondents again considered the
case of the petitioner and found, that the petitioner while being released on
probation had been directed to keep peace and not to repeat such acts in
future; that he had inspite of warning, falsely stated in the attestation form
that no case was pending against him and he was thus not found suitable for
the post of Constable (Executive).
5. Though this Bench has in several other cases coming before us has
been consistently following the dicta of the Supreme Court in Commissioner
of Police Vs. Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644 but the present case stands
on a different pedestal. Here as aforesaid, the petitioner has been convicted
of the offence under Section 143 of the IPC i.e. of being member of an
Unlawful Assembly. Though he has been released on probation, but we find
ourselves unable to interfere in the assessment made by the respondents i.e.
as to who is suitable and who is not for the post of Constable (Executive) in
the Police who are required to constantly interact and render assistance to
the public. If the recruiting agencies are of the view that the petitioner for
the reason of, having been convicted as aforesaid even though released on
probation; and for the reason of having deliberately made a false declaration
as distinct from mere suppression, is not suitable for the said post, it is not
for this Court to interfere in the same. It has been repeatedly held that the
Courts cannot interfere in the selection process. The Apex Court in Sandeep
Kumar (supra) and this Bench following the same, though has been
interfering with the selection process but those were the cases where the
applicants had not been convicted. Here the matter has been considered by
the appropriate authorities of the respondents not once but twice as aforesaid
and we are not inclined to thrust the petitioner on the un-wanting
respondents and which alone may instill a false feeling of confidence in the
petitioner and may be detrimental to his functioning in the respondent‟s
department.
6. We thus find ourselves unable to interfere in the exercise of powers of
judicial review in the order of the Tribunal. Moreover as aforesaid nearly
four years have elapsed. The petitioner is thus not entitled to any relief. The
petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
DECEMBER 16, 2011
„gsr‟
