Disposed

Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC25 Mar 2022WRIA/1307/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the cancellation of the petitioner's constable selection. It directed the petitioner to approach the appointing authority with a representation, which must be decided based on a specific Supreme Court judgment regarding the impact of undisclosed pending criminal cases.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to approach the Commandant within 15 days with a representation for consideration of the cancellation order based on specific paragraphs of a cited Supreme Court judgment.

Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 37

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1307 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Mahendra Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Mishra,Atipriya Gautam,Ishir Sripat,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

¶5

Instructions filed today be kept on record.

¶6

The petitioner was appointed as a constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary. When his selection was cancelled by the order dated 24.12.2021 he has approached this Court.

¶7

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first information report which had resulted in Case Crime No. 169 of 2021, under Sections 323, 307, 354 IPC was lodged against the petitioner on 23.7.2021. The petitioner when had, thereafter, submitted his notary affidavit on 29.7.2021 had no knowledge about the the Case Crime No. 169 of 2021 and, therefore, he did not mention about the criminal case at all in his affidavit.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel, however, relying upon the instructions which had been received by him stated that the petitioner very well knew about the criminal case and, therefore, he had filed a wrong affidavit and thus his selection had been rightly cancelled.

¶9

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, the Court is impressed by the fact that when the first information report was lodged on 23.7.2021 and when the petitioner was not jailed etc then there is a possibility that the petitioner did not know about the lodging of the first information report. However, ends of justice would be

¶10

served if the petitioner approaches the respondent no. 7 and pleads his case before him by means of a representation. The respondent no. 7 would decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of the contents of paragraphs no. 38.1, 38.2. and 38.8 of the judgement passed in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India reported in (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 471.

¶11

Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon paragraphs no. 38.1, 38.2. and 38.8 of the aforesaid judgement, they are being reproduced here as under:-

¶12

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

¶13

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

¶14

38.8. If criminal case was pending but not know to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.

¶15

Under such circumstances, it is being directed that if the petitioner represents before the respondent no. 7, the Commandant 15th Bn. P.A.C., Agra, District - Agra, within a period of 15 days from today along with a certified copy of this order, the representation of the petitioner shall be decided by the respondent no. 7 in the light of the contents of paragraphs no. 38.1, 38.2. and 38.8 of the judgement passed in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India reported in (2016) 8 Supreme

¶16

Court Cases 471 within a period of 15 days thereafter.

¶17

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 25.3.2022/PK

¶19

(Siddhartha Varma,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 2022.03.25 17:43:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Atul Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Anil Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Phool Chandra Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lalit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Mateshwari Swayam Sahayata Samooh Goan shabha Pakadi Gosai Vs State of U.P. Through Sec. Panchayati Raj and 4 others