Disposed

Rajit Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2021WRIA/313/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge writ bench referred the matter back to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, for fresh consideration regarding the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for the post of Police Constable due to a pending criminal case, invoking the discretion principle from Avtar Singh.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; the matter is relegated to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi for fresh consideration.

Rajit Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 313 of 2021 Petitioner :- Rajit Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Naveen Kumar Yadav,Kamal Singh Yadav

¶2

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶4

Written instructions supplied by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi indicate that the District Magistrate, Varanasi in its letter dated 31.10.2020 has indicated about pendency of a criminal case namely Case Crime No. 309 of 2020 registered under Section 323/504/506 IPC in Thana Chabeypur, District Varanasi. The reason for rejection of candidature of the petitioner for selection on the post of Police Constable (Civil), which was conducted pursuant to the Constable Civil Police & Constable PAC Recruitment Examination 2018, was the criminal case registered in the year 2020. The date of lodging of criminal case/FIR is 24.6.2020 as indicated in the writ petition whereas the petitioner had given an affidavit on 18.9.2020 stating therein that no criminal case had been lodged against him.

¶5

The submission is that the fact of lodging of the FIR was not in the knowledge of the petitioner, inasmuch as, no summon had been issued nor he was called to participate in the investigation till the date of verification of the documents.

¶6

Be that as it may, the categorical averments in the writ petition have not been replied to the effect that the petitioner cannot be said to have concealed the information about the said criminal case.

¶7

There is no consideration to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471 .

¶8

Relevant paragraph '38.6' is quoted as under:-

¶9

" 38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. "

¶10

Considering the vague averments in the written instructions supplied today and the specific stand of the petitioner, the

¶11

matter is relegated to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi for fresh consideration in the light of the observations in paragraph 38.6 of the decision in Avtar Singh (supra).

¶12

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 17.2.2021 Brijesh

Rajit Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajit Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Gulshan Babu Kataria Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Madhubala Gangwar Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Gyanendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Suresh Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Saroj Kumari Vs State of U P and 5 Others