Lalit Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Writ petitionDisposed of directing petitioner to make representation to respondent no.2 regarding appointment letter pending due to non-disclosure of criminal case, subject to scrutiny in light of Avatar Singh SC decision.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 53941 of 2016
Petitioner :- Lalit Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Gagan Pratap Singh,Brij Bhushan Prasad Shriv Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nishith Yadav
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nishith Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.
The petitioner is aggrieved by non-issuance of appointment letter to him on the ground that a criminal case is pending, in which he has shown as one of the accused. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an advertisement was issued on 19.8.2013 by the Public Services Commission U.P., Allahabad for selection to be held for Combined Lower Sub-ordinate Services (General) and Combined Lower Sub-ordinate Services (Handicapped Category) Backlog Special Selection. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner has submitted online application and was allotted Roll. No. 394269. The petitioner belongs to scheduled caste category, his candidature was accepted, he qualified the preliminary examination and also the main examination. After the result of the main examination was declared, the petitioner was called for interview on 18.12.2015, after giving the interview, result was declared, the petitioner was so selected for the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade IInd/ADO (Cooperative). The medical fitness test of the petitioner was done at District Hospital Agra. Despite completion of all the stages of the selection, he was not issued any appointment letter. He filed an application under RTI Act and he received information on 12.9.2016, that appointment letter was not issued to him as during verification from the police, it was found that Case Crime No.38/2008 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 452 and 326 IPC. was registered against the petitioner in PS- Shamsabad, District- Agra. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no column regarding pendency or otherwise criminal case in the application form for the preliminary examination and for the main examination individually at the time of interview that information was required regarding pendency of criminal cases the petitioner honestly disclosed that one Criminal Case No.36 of 2008 was pending against him, however in the information received on 12.9.2006, it has wrongly been mentioned that
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to an appointment letter despite pendency of a criminal case against him which was not disclosed during selection.
Whether the appointing authority is mandatorily barred from issuing an appointment letter when a criminal case is pending against a candidate.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Lalit Kumar
- respondent
State Of U.P.
- respondent
Respondent No. 2
- respondent
Respondent No. 3 to 5
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- WRIA/53941/2016
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court