RAVINDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) IT transpires that the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Constable and was recruited on 3 -3 -2004. After his recruitment the petitioner filed an affidavit dated 30 -10 -2004 intimating the authorities that he had been acquitted in a criminal case on 13 -9 -2004. Based on the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the respondents issued an order dated 12 -4 -2005 cancelling his appointment on the post of Constable on the ground that he had furnished false information. Consequently, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Qamrul Hoda v. Chief Security Commissioner, N.E. Railway, 1997(2) LBESR 448 (All) : (1997) 2 UPLBEC 1201, in which it was held that even though, the applicant did not place the correct facts while filling up the declaration form, the crucial fact that now he has been acquitted would entitle him for being appointed on the post of Constable. This Court held that concealment of the correct facts in the declaration form was not sufficient for debarring him from being selected to the post of Constable. The petitioner has also made reliance upon another judgment of this Court in Satish Kumar Shukla v. Union of India and Ors., 2002(1) LBESR 92 (All) (LB) : (2002) 1 UPLBEC 610.