AMAN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has been marked to this Court as DB-VI has not assembled today.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted his online application for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector (in short "SI") in Delhi Police & Central Armed Police Force and for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (in short "ASI") in Central Industrial Security Force (in short "CISF") in CISF examination, 2016. The result of the examination was declared on 28.07.2016 pertaining to Paper-I for the post of SI in Delhi Police, CAPFs and ASI in the CISF examination 2016. The petitioner also cleared his Physical Endurance Test (PET) on 15.09.2016. Meanwhile, on 18.12016 the petitioner also cleared Mains/Paper-II. On 07.04.2017, he was called for Detailed Medical Examination (DME) and Document Verification (DV). It is claimed by the petitioner that he was declared medically fit and his documents were duly verified. Accordingly, the petitioner was recommended for appointment to the post of ASI in CISF in September, 2017. The petitioner was provisionally selected for an appointment of ASI/Exe in CISF on 08.01.2018. The petitioner was called to report on 10.02018 for basic training. It is further pointed out that the petitioner was acquitted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (in short "CJM") in the case arising out of FIR No.120 dated 28.03.2017 and he had informed respondent No.2 about his acquittal in the criminal case. The petitioner thereafter received a communication dated 20.03.2018 informing him that the provisional offer of his appointment stands withdrawn and the case of the petitioner would be forwarded to the Standing Screening Committee constituted for examining the case for the suitability of the petitioner in CISF. The petitioner was also informed that the decision of the Standing Screening Committee would be intimated to him.

(3.) The grievances of the petitioner are two fold, firstly that the petitioner has not been informed about his fate by the Standing Screening Committee since 20.02018, secondly that he apprehends that Standing Screening Committee would not follow the Central Government (Ministry of Home Affairs) Guidelines of 01.02.2012 entitled "Policy Guidelines for Considering cases of candidates for appointment in CAPFs pendency of criminal cases against candidatesthe effect of ".