VIKAS KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's grievance is that after being selected by the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), the Offer of Appointment initially extended to him was withdrawn by the impugned order dated 09.03.2015.

(2.) The petitioner had responded to an advertisement for filling up the post of Sub -Inspector in Delhi Police & Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) as well as the post of Assistant Sub -Inspector in CISF. He participated in the recruitment process and qualified in all tests. In their final result declared in April 2014, he was shown to have been selected for the post of Sub -Inspector in the CISF. A letter of Appointment was issued to him dated 19.09.2014. The petitioner had disclosed at the relevant stage in the recruitment process that he had been in the past implicated in a criminal case and had been alleged to have committed offences punishable under Ss. 323/324/325/326/506 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). At the same time, he had stated that the criminal charges ended in acquittal on 01.06.2011 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kurukshetra, Haryana. By the impugned order - issued on 09.03.2015 - the CISF withdrew the Offer of Appointment in the light of its existing policy and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 01.02.2012.

(3.) Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is arbitrary. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in Sandeep Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 1029/2014 and submits that the Court had in somewhat identical circumstances where the candidate's criminal case had ended in acquittal, directed that the offer of appointment withdrawn by the public employer should be quashed. The Court had, in the said judgment, taken note of the guidelines applicable to the CISF. The Court observed as follows: -