LAWS(ALL)-2003-9-254

SHEOBIR SINGH SIROHI Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On September 22, 2003
SHEOBIR SINGH SIROHI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the State Police Service of Uttar Pradesh.

(2.) The admitted facts of this case are that the petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector and after having been successful in the written examination, vide letter dated 7.5.1981, he was required to appear before the Interview Board on 19.5.1981. The petitioner appeared before the Interview Board and it is his case that he had been declared successful for selection and appointment as Sub-Inspector. On 19.8.1981, a report was called for by the Superintendent of Police, Police Headquarters from the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr with regard to the verification of the character of the petitioner. The District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, submitted his report in September, 1981, stating that there was a Case Crime No. 52 under Section 302/307, I.P.C. registered against the petitioner in which he was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Court. On the basis of the said report, the petitioner was not sent for training and was also not given appointment as Sub-Inspector. Thus, the petitioner filed this writ petition claiming that, since he had already been acquitted by the High Court on 3.10.1979 in Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 1975 (vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition), he was entitled to appointment as a Sub-Inspector on the basis of the selection made by the respondents in which he had duly qualified and had been selected.

(3.) Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute this factual position but has, however, submitted that since the petitioner had given a wrong information with regard to the pendency of criminal proceedings against him at the time of filling up the form on the date of interview, i.e., on 19.5.1981, hence he was guilty of mis-information and thus not entitled to appointment as a Sub-Inspector.