Petitioner challenged denial of police constable appointment alleging accidental omission in medical form. Court held candidate evaded disclosing pending criminal case and dismissed writ as recruitment concluded with no vacancies.
The writ petition is dismissed on merit.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
O R D E R
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5453/2014
[BHUTA RAM VS. STATE & ORS.]
Date of order
: 12.02.2016.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Mr. Vijay Raj Bhisnoi for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Bissa Additional Government Counsel.
BY THE COURT :
In the present writ petition the petitioner is seeking a direction for appointment to the post of constable in the Rajasthan Police Constable Recruitment, 2012.
It is contended by counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner being fully eligible for the post applied and after being successful in the written examination, came to be called for the physical test. His name was reflected at Serial No.6 in OBC Category, he has been denied appointment on account of concealment of a criminal case that was pending against him.
It is further contended that at the time of police verification he had submitted that a charge sheet was filed against him but inadvertently in the column of personal information left the column blank pertaining to the pendency of
2
any criminal case. It has been further argued that appointment should not be denied on the ground that there has been a criminal case pending against him specifically when he stood discharged from offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for short “IPC”) vide order dated 23.09.2013.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. reported in AIR 2013 SC 3325, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is the duty of the candidates to fill in Column meant for seeking information with regard to involvement in criminal case and if material information is suppressed, he would not be entitled to appointment. Further more, reliance has also been placed in a judgment rendered in the matter of State of M.P. v. Parvez Khan 2015 (1) MPHT Writ Petition No.17508/2014 (SC) wherein it has been held that candidates having criminal antecedents should not be appointed in police force.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.
Admittedly, an F.I.R. No.117/2012 came to be registered under Sections 457 & 380 I.P.C at Police Station Jhanwar on 07.09.2012. The petitioner at that time was unaware of the pendency of the criminal case since his name was not mentioned
3
in the FIR. The petitioner submitted his online application form for appointment on the post of constable in the Rajasthan Police Constable Recruitment, 2012 on 06.11.2012. After being successful in the written and physical test at the time of police verification , the petitioner did not fill in column No.20 pertaining to pendency of criminal case, in the personal particulars and declaration form, though in the police verification form there is a vague reference to the pendency of a criminal case at Police Station Jhanwar.
A perusal of the Annexures 4 and 5 annexed with the additional affidavit shows that some information was given about the pendency of the case. However, the petitioner ought to have filled in his form correctly on 02.05.2013 by giving full particulars as required since the petitioner did have full knowledge about the pendency of the criminal proceedings since he had applied for bail in the said matter. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner was evasive in giving details of the criminal case pending against him.
Further more, this Court is not likely to interfere in the matter since, the appointment/selections pertains to the Rajasthan Police Constable Recruitment, 2012 and the same has since been concluded. It is a categoric averment of the counsel for the respondent that there are no vacancies left as 200 appointment letters to selected candidates have already been issued on 04.06.2013 and the petitioner came to be discharged
4
subsequent thereto on 23.09.2013. In such a situation, this Court cannot issue any direction, in view of the fact that successful candidates have not been impleaded as party respondent to the writ petition and no post was kept vacant at the time when the matter was initially taken up for hearing.
In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition
and the same is hereby, dismissed.
(JAISHREE THAKUR), J.
Mamta
2 issues framed by the court
Whether appointment should be denied due to concealment of pendency of a criminal case pending against the candidate.
Whether the High Court can issue a direction for appointment when the recruitment process has already concluded.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors.Referred¶17
AIR 2013 SC 3325 · Who else cites this
State of M.P. v. Parvez KhanReferred¶17
State of M.P. v. Parvez Khan
BHUTA RAM
STATE & ORS.
JAISHREE THAKUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
JAISHREE THAKUR
Parties & counsel
