PRAVEEN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the letter/order dated 23.11.2013 issued by respondent No. 4, whereby the offer to him of provisional appointment to the post of Sub Inspector/Exe in CISF was withdrawn. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents for conducting his basic training for the said post as well as for fixation of his seniority to just below the person who was immediately above him in the select list as was declared selected for the post of Sub Inspector in the examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in the year 2012.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that being eligible and having qualified the examination conducted by the SSC in the year 2012 for the post of Sub Inspector/Exe for CISF, he was issued a letter on 30.06.2013, which provisionally appointed him to the post of Sub Inspector/Executive in CISF and he was directed to report to the Director, National Industrial Security Academy (NISA), Hakimpet, Hyderabad on 09.08.2013 along with certain certificates, forms and documents, duly complete in all respects and signed by the appropriate authority as prescribed. In compliance of the requirements of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner, in the interregnum, produced his Character Certificate along with other relevant documents as well as a copy of the court order/judgment dated 9.9.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Rewari, whereby he was acquitted of the charges for offences punishable under Sections 147/149/323/452/506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, vide a letter dated 28.8.2013, the petitioner was directed not to report for his basic training since a decision concerning his candidature was still pending with the Standing Screening Committee. He was also asked to supply a legible copy of the aforesaid judgment of the Trial Court and he accordingly did so. Finally, vide the impugned letter/order dated 23.11.2013, his provisional appointment was withdrawn on the ground that he was not found suitable for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector/Exe in CISF as he had previously been involved in a criminal case.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment of the Trial Court does not suggest that the complainant had turned hostile due to fear of reprisal by the petitioner; instead, the petitioner was acquitted after a full fledged trial and it was not merely a technical acquittal. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that for the Standing Screening Committee (Commitee) to doubt the acquittal and suggest involvement of the petitioner would amount to casting aspersion on the petitioner's character without any basis and this would be unsustainable in law, especially since the Committee's decision is not based upon any legally admissible material. He relies upon the dicta of this Court in Devender Kumar Yadav v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, : 2012 (190) DLT 140 in support of his case which held thus: