LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-287

PRASHANT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U. P.

Decided On May 06, 2022
PRASHANT KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U. P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Vijay Gautam, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rishabh Kesarwani, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied pursuant to the advertisement dtd. 16/11/2018 for the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC, Direct Recruitment-2018-II. The petitioner appeared in the written examination on 27/1/2019. He was declared successful in written examination and, thereafter, he appeared in document verification & Physical Efficient Test (PET) and he was declared medically fit in the aforesaid test. As per the final list of selected candidates, which was published on 2/3/2020, the petitioner was shown as successful candidate. Thereafter, he was allotted district-Meerut for joining his training, however, the competent authority has not permitted the petitioner to join his training (JTC), on the ground that the petitioner has given a false affidavit with respect to pendency of criminal case, which was lodged against the petitioner and one unknown person on 10/5/2021 being Case Crime No.142 of 2021, under Ss. 188, 269, 270 IPC and 3 Epidemic Act at P.S. Doghat, DistrictBaghpat. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court dtd. 8/10/2021 in Cri. Misc. Writ Petition No.7787 of 2021 (Vinay Kumar and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.), the State Government has withdrawn all the criminal proceedings, which have been initiated under Epidemic Act 1987, during pandemic of Covid-19 on 26/10/2021. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the criminal case lodged against the petitioner has also been withdrawn on 15/2/2022. The petitioner was neither arrested nor he has obtained bail from any court in the aforesaid case and the said FIR was lodged behind the back of petitioner as the petitioner did not have any knowledge about lodging of the said FIR, therefore, at the time of submitting the affidavit, he has not disclosed about the aforesaid criminal case, which was later withdrawn. Subsequently, the impugned order dtd. 31/3/2022 has been passed by respondent no.6 whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled in an arbitrary manner without application of judicial mind, therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

(3.) He further submitted that as the aforesaid criminal case against the petitioner has been withdrawn vide order dtd. 15/2/2022 and he has already been exonerated from all the charges, therefore, the case of the petitioner should have been considered while passing the order impugned. He further submits that while passing the order impugned, the respondent authorities has not applied their mind and passed a technical order without considering the directions as issued by the Apex Court in the cases of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of Indian and others, reported in 2016(8) SCC 471 and Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India and another reported in (2022) 0 Supreme (SC) 391. He further submits that the petitioners' claim for appointment is liable to be considered in the light of Avtar Singh (supra), which has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal (Def.) No. 734 of 2016 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Vijay Kumar and others). Contention is that the petitioner's claim has not been examined, in accordance with law. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that at the time of submission of affidavit, a criminal case was pending against the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has suppressed the fact of pendency of criminal case and submitted a false affidavit, hence he is not entitled to be considered for appointment on the said post, as any person desirous of holding the post of government servant has to act with utmost good faith and truthfulness. He further submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.