DHARMJEET Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 28.9.2005 passed by the Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Northern Railway, Moradabad (respondent no. 3) canceling the candidature of the petitioner for recruitment as Constable in Railway Protection Force (in short ''RPF') the petitioner has come up in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a further mandamus commanding the respondents to send him for training and appoint on the said post.

(2.) The facts in brief as stated in the writ petition are that Railway Protection Force, Northern Railway in 2004 notified recruitment for the post of Constable pursuant whereto the petitioner submitted his application on 1.11.2004. The form was submitted in duplicate and one copy thereof was returned to the petitioner by the commandant. He was allotted Roll No. 205171. He appeared in written examination held at Gorakhpur on 2.11.2004 followed by interview dated 3.11.2004 and by letter dated 1.7.2005 issued by the respondent no. 3 he was informed of his selection for the post of Constable in RPF in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4950 subject to the condition of character verification and medical examination etc. The petitioner was declared successful in medical examination and was awaiting order of training but he received impugned order dated 28.9.2005 passed by respondent no. 3 canceling his candidature on the ground that at the time of submitting application form the petitioner concealed the fact that he was involved in a criminal case No. 248-A of 1996 under Section 323, 304, 324 IPC on account whereof he was disqualified for appointment. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner made representations dated 7.10.2005, 14.10.2005 and 21.10.2005 but of no avail, therefore has filed this writ petition.

(3.) The respondent no. 3 in its counter affidavit has said that in para 13 of the Form, the petitioner was to disclose certain information regarding his previous antecedents which he disclosed in negative concealing the fact that he was prosecuted under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC, which was registered as Case No. 248-A of 1998. Rule 52.1 of Railway Protection Rules, 1987 provides for verification of character and antecedents of a selected candidate and under rule 52.2 if a candidate is found unsuitable, he is not liable to be appointed. After the selection of the petitioner when his character and antecedents were sought to be verified it was reported by the Police Station Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar that he was involved in a criminal case in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti (hereinafter referred to as the "A.C.J.M., Basti") though he was acquitted therein. Consequently when the said information was processed and it was found that in the application form he has not disclosed this fact and made a wrong verification, the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF issued a letter dated 24.9.2005 addressed to the respondent no. 3 directing that the petitioner having concealed the aforesaid information cannot be enlisted as constable in RPF and consequently, the respondent no. 3 passed the order dated 28.9.21005 which is absolutely correct and in accordance with law.