TRIVENI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary (P.A.C.) in the year 1998. As required he furnished an affidavit to the effect that no criminal case was pending against him nor any such case has been lodged against him. On police verification, it was found that the affidavit given by the petitioner was false as a criminal case bearing Case Crime No.166/96 under Sections 323, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1), S.C. and S.T. Act was pending against him. On account of the aforesaid concealment by the petitioner, he was not offered any appointment. Being aggrieved, he filed a Writ Petition No.3376 of 1999, which was disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner for taking him back in service. In compliance thereof, the representation of the petitioner was rejected on 18.02.1999. The petitioner filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.27571 of 1999 seeking quashing of the orders dated 22.05.1999 and 02.06.1999 by which his selection on the post in question was cancelled. This court on 09.07.1999 passed an interim order directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to undergo requisite training of the Police Constable subject to further orders by this court. It is alleged that the petitioner underwent the requisite training for the post in question and after completing the training, he was sent from 11th Batalian, Sitapur to 12th Batalian, Fatehpur where he joined on 15.08.2000. On 26.08.2000, an order was passed by the Commandant of the 12th Batalian, Fatehpur to the effect that his services were being terminated in view of the interim order passed by the High Court. It appears that as the interim order was only for sending him on training subject to further orders, therefore, the respondents realising their mistake in appointing him cancelled the same by the order dated 26.08.2000 as otherwise there was no order of this court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed subsequent writ petition, i.e. Writ Petition No.55097 of 2000 challenging the order dated 26.08.2000.

(3.) BOTH the writ petitions have been clubbed and are being decided by a common judgment.