“8. In the present case, it is evident from the factual narrative that the petitioner at all relevant times disclosed his involvement in the various criminal cases he was implicated in. He was acquitted of all charges honourably by the judgment of the competent criminal court on 07.08.2007. Even this was brought to the notice of BSF. The record further discloses that the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature took place during the pendency of the writ petition preferred by him, i.e. W.P.(C) 8287/2007. In fact, the rejection took place on 25.01.2008. Keeping in mind the conspectus of these circumstances and also after considering the record including the two judgments of the competent court, it was held that the action of the respondent BSF in cancelling the petitioner’s candidature and refusing to appointment was arbitrary. Consequential direction naturally was that he ought to be directed to be appointed “forthwith”. It is not the BSF’s case that there was suspension or stay of the Court judgment during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition preferred by it. Even that Special Leave Petition was rejected on 29.09.2008. Their contention now is that the literal and plain meaning is to be given to the rule i.e. Rule 7 (3) (iv).
