Allowed

Naveen Rajhans v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2023WRIA/21793/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a writ petition for quashing an order rejecting the petitioner's employment representation. The rejection was based on criminal case pendency without conscious application of Supreme Court principles. The writ was allowed, remitting the matter for a fresh decision applying Avatar Singh and Satish Chandra Yadav.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed, and the matter remitted to respondent no.6 for a fresh decision within four weeks.

Naveen Rajhans Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21793 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Naveen Rajhans Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents who has provided the copy of the written instructions dated 13.01.2023 which is taken on record.

¶6

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard and has been decided at the admission stage itself.

¶7

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20.11.2022 whereby the respondent no.5 has decided the representation moved by the petitioner in pursuance of the order passed by this Court dated 14.09.2022 in Writ-A No.11788 of 2022.

¶8

The contention of the petitioner is that he had applied for the post of Constable in Civil Police as well as P.A.C. in pursuance of the notification dated 16.11.2018. The petitioner had cleared the written examination as well as the medical examination. He has furnished an afÏdavit indicating his antecedents. He had also clearly disclosed the pendency of a criminal case bearing No.368 of 2018 under Sections 147, 332, 341, 505, 336, 427 IPC, Police Station Mohamdabad Gohana, District Mau. It is on the basis of mere pendency of the said criminal case that the case of the petitioner was not found suitable.

¶9

It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner had represented with the respondent no.6 but since the representation was not considered, accordingly the petitioner was compelled to file a petition bearing number Writ-A No.21788 of 2022.

¶10

It is further submitted that though this Court by means of order dated 14.09.2022 had directed the representation of the petitioner to be decided and in furtherance thereof the representation has been decided by means of the impugned order dated 20.11.2022. However, the said impugned order does not take care of the well settled principles which have been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Avatar Singh Vs. Union of India and other, 2016 (8) SCC 471 . It is further urged that the petitioner is duly covered by the aforesaid decision and is entitled to the grant of the aforesaid benefit.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the written instructions has submitted that the case of the petitioner was not found suitable for the reason of the pendency of the criminal case. However, he could not dispute the fact that from the perusal of the impugned order, there is nothing which indicates that conscious application of mind to the principles as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Avatar Singh (supra) has been noticed or applied to the case of the petitioner.

¶12

In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to call for a counter-afÏdavit rather finds that the order impugned cannot be sustained as there is no conscious application of the principles as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Avatar Singh (supra) which has further been explained in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1300.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid, the matter is remitted to the respondent no.6 who shall take a fresh decision on the representation of the petitioner specifically noticing the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Avatar Singh (supra) and Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) and its meaningful application to the case of petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed before the Authority concerned and intimate the same to the petitioner and it is applicability to the case of the petitioner.

¶14

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of the petitioner on merits and the

¶15

Authority shall take a decision in light of the observations made hereinabove.

¶16

With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

Order Date :- 17.2.2023 ank

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naveen Rajhans v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Rajhans v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Smt.Kanchan Chaurasia Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nitesh Kumar Singh Yadav Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Awadhesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chote Lal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vineeta Pandey Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Smt.Rani Pathak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others