ANUJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the order dated 03.09.2020 passed by respondent no. 3- Commandant, 43 Battalion, Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC), Etah, whereby the competent authority has found that the petitioner is not suitable for appointment on the post of Constable in the PAC.

(2.) Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No.3 was misdirected in law by overlooking the fact that the petitioner was tried for an offence as a juvenile. The case of the petitioner is covered by the law laid down by this Court in Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported at 2019 (4) ADJ 316, Shivam Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported at (2020) 5 ADJ 6 and in Kishan Paswan Vs. Union of India and others reported at 2020 (11) ADJ 254. The impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the pendency of a criminal case and the suppression of the same in the Attestation Form by the petitioner are admitted. The offence against the petitioner was not of a trivial nature, and moreover the petitioner had been convicted by the learned trial court. He is not suitable for appointment in a disciplined force like the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) and his candidature was lawfully invalidated. The impugned order is not liable to be interfered with.