PRAMOD YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's candidature for appointment to the post of constable pursuant to recruitment exercise initiated in 2015, has been rejected by the order impugned dated 25th December 2018.

(2.) Perusal of the record would go to show that petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of constable. However, at the stage of verification of records, it transpired that NCR was registered against him. A notice was accordingly issued to petitioner on 17.12.2018 by the District Nodal Officer, according to which, NCR No. 178 of 2011 under Sections 323 , 504 , 506 IPC was registered against the petitioner, which fact had been suppressed in the affidavit. Petitioner submitted his reply to this notice stating that petitioner was not aware of lodging of the said case, nor his statement etc was recorded.

(3.) It is also stated that ultimately the investigation has resulted in a final report being submitted in the matter. The explanation of the petitioner, however, has not been accepted and treating it to be a case of suppression of relevant information, petitioner's candidature has been rejected by the order impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not aware about lodging of NCR and petitioner's candidature has not been examined in correct perspective. It is also stated that petitioner otherwise was falsely implicated in an offence which was trivial in nature. Reliance is placed upon para 38 of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others 2016 (8) SCC 471. The Apex Court has considered all previous judgments on the issue and has summarized the principles in para 38 which is extracted hereinafter:-