SIDDHARTH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, Police Commissionerate, Varanasi dtd. 3/2/2023, rejecting the petitioner's case for appointment as a Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police, on account of a criminal case lodged against him, of which he has been later on acquitted.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition would show that the petitioner staked his claim for the post of a Police Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police. This was in the recruitment year 2013. The petitioner was selected for the post and the date for his training was scheduled as 2/12/2015. After the petitioner was selected, in the Police Verification Report Form (PVR), he disclosed that a criminal case had been lodged against him, in which this Court had stayed proceedings. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi by his order dtd. 2/2/2016 rejected the petitioner's candidature on ground of pendency of that case. That order of the Senior S.P., Varanasi was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by means of Writ-A No.18399 of 2016, wherein an interim order dtd. 26/4/2016 was granted to the following effect:

(3.) This order was challenged by the State by means of Special Appeal Defective No.130 of 2017. The Division Bench allowed the appeal vide judgment and order dtd. 27/2/2017 and set aside the interim order dtd. 26/4/2016. The learned Single Judge was required to decide the writ petition on merits. The writ petition came up before the learned Single Judge for hearing on 19/9/2022 and this Court vide judgment and order of that date set aside the order dtd. 2/2/2016 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, rejecting the petitioner's candidature, with a remit of the matter to the said Officer carrying a direction to take into account the subsequent acquittal that the petitioner had earned vide judgment and order dtd. 5/3/2019 passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Judge directed the Senior S.P. that in taking his decision, he shall exercise his power independently, in accordance with law, but would consider the effect of the judgment of acquittal dtd. 5/3/2019 passed by the learned Magistrate in the criminal case.