AKHILESH KUMAR ALIAS BABLOO Vs. COMMANDANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to admit the petitioner in the batch selected on 2.8.1994 as Police P.A.C. Constables and direct to join as such.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of the advertisement published in the month of May-June, 1994 for the recruitment of the Police/P.A.C. Constables the petitioner applied. On 2.8.1994 the petitioner underwent various tests in the Police Lines, Farrukhabad, namely, written test, measurement test, medical test and interview. The petitioner cleared all the tests and has been called upon by the 37, P.A.C. Vahini (Task Force) Bareilly between 6.9.1994 to 11.9.1994. It is the contention of the petitioner that out of the selected candidates, 80 have been asked to join the 47 P.A.C. Vahini (Task Force) Bareilly for training but 9 candidates, including the petitioner were refused enrolment, six of whom were under height and three on the basis of character verification. The joining of the petitioner has been withheld on the ground that a criminal case no. 265A of 1994 was pending against him and for that a report was called from respondent no. 3. For character verification Sri R.N. Singh, Sub-Divisional Magistrate was authorized to discharge the function of the District Magistrate and he called for a report from the D.G.C. (Criminal) Farrukhabad. The D.G.C. (Criminal) Farrukhabad submitted a copy of the chargesheet in case crime no. 265 A of 1994 in which 8 persons were chargesheeted and the petitioner's name was no where there. The copy of the chargesheet dated 4.8.1994 is Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

(3.) It appears that a clarification has been sought that why the petitioner's name had not figured in the chargesheet. The Police Station on 27.8.1994 submitted the report stating therein that the case against the petitioner was found false in the investigation so his name was dropped in the chargesheet. Thereafter, the Commandant, 47 P.A.C. Vahini (Task Force), Bareilly, directed the Senior Superintendent Police to obtain the opinion of the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad on the point. It appears that Sri R.N. Singh, S.D.M., In-charge District Magistrate vide his letter dated 20.9.1994 asked the D.G.C. (Criminal) for opinion whether on the facts and circumstances the petitioner is suitable for the Government service or not. On the said letter itself the D.G.C. (Criminal) Farrukhabad has given his opinion on 21.9.1994 that as per the police report there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner and the case, which was registered, was found false hence in my opinion he is suitable for the State service. On the instruction of respondent no. 1, respondent no. 3 has recorded the statement of the petitioner on 20.9.1994. In the statement it is stated that a false FIR was lodged in which the name of the petitioner was mentioned and on inquiry the involvement of the petitioner was found false and accordingly in the charge sheet the name of the petitioner has not been stated. However, it is stated that no case is pending in any of the court. By the letter dated 20.10.1994 Sri R.N. Singh, Incharge District Magistrate sent all the necessary papers to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad and further expressed his opinion that the petitioner is suitable for the Government service. He further stated that for the purposes of the verification of the character and issue of certificate in this regard he has been authorized by the District Magistrate. When the S.S.P., Farrukhabad required the opinion for the signature of the District Magistrate himself, the District Magistrate by his letter dated 15.11.1994 wrote a letter agreeing with the view of Sri R.N. Singh, Incharge District Magistrate and further certified the character of the petitioner and expressed his opinion that he is suitable for the Government service. It is the contention of the petitioner that despite the character certificate was being issued by the District Magistrate and the fact that the petitioner was found suitable for the Government service the petitioner has not been sent for training and has not been allowed to join. At this stage the petitioner filed the present writ petition.