Delhi High Court
Rohit Kumar vs Directorate General Itb Police & ... on 9 January, 2015
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: January 09, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 1039/2014
ROHIT KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.S.D.Singh, Advocate with
Mr.Rahul Kumar Singh, Advocate
versus
DIRECTORATE GENERAL ITB POLICE
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Manish Mohan, CGSC with
Mr.M.P.Singh, Mr.Gaurav Sharma
and Ms.Hina Shaheen, Advocates for
R-1 and R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner had applied for appointment in a central para-military
force for the post of Assistant Commandant, which we note is a Group-A
post.
2. The petitioner is post-graduate in commerce and has obtained a
degree in Bachelor in Education. His address tells us that he does not come
from a humble socio economic background. He comes from a family which
is educated and he himself is an educated person.
3. Public employment in a central para-military force has been denied to
the petitioner because while filling up the enrolment form he deliberately
withheld relevant information in the applicable column where he was
required to state whether any FIR was registered against him. He wrote in
the negative being in full knowledge of the fact that he was an accused in
FIR No.37 for offences punishable under Sections 323/341/34 IPC PS
G.T.B.Enclave, Shahdara, Delhi.
4. The petitioner claims that his case is squarely covered by a decision of
the Supreme Court reported as 2011 (4)SCC 644 Commissioner of Police &
Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar.
5. The petitioner overlooks that Sandeep Kumar came from a humble
socio economic background and was seeking recruitment in Delhi Police to
the humble post of constable. The view taken by the Supreme Court was
that those who were involved in petty offences should not be denied public
employment on said ground alone. As regards the charge against Sandeep
Kumar that he did not disclose that he was an accused in an FIR, the view
taken by the Court was that keeping in view his humble origin it was fear
which probably led him not to state the truth.
6. In the decision reported as (2013) 7 SCC 685 Commissioner of
Police, New Delhi & Anr. Vs. Mehar Singh the Supreme Court held that for
public employment in police force it was incumbent upon the Court to
ensure that there was complete probity shown by the applicant. In the
decision reported as 2010(14) SCC 103 Daya Shankar Yadav Vs. Union of
India & Ors. the Supreme Court held that apart from being involved in a
criminal case, suppression of material information while filling up the
enrolment form was an independent wrong and by itself was sufficient to
deny public employment.
7. We would only add a caveat. If public employment is being sought in
posts of humble origins, such as Group-C and Group-D posts, where
candidates would normally be from humble socio economic background
different considerations would weigh with the Court vis-a-vis those
candidates who seek employment, as in the present case, in Group-A posts,
and that too in an armed force. The requirement of utmost probity by the
candidate would be at the highest pedestal where employment is being
sought to a Group-A post and that too in an armed force.
8. We find no infirmity in the view taken by the department that since
the petitioner deliberately withheld giving relevant information and gave
false information while filling up the enrolment form, employment as an
Assistant Commandant in a central armed para-military force needs to be
denied to him.
9. The writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
CM No.2134/2014
Dismissed as infructuous.
(RADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(PRATIBHA RANI)
JUDGE
JANUARY 09, 2015
rk
