DARA SURESH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was unsuccessful before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.02.2012 in O.A. No. 629 of 2011 passed by the learned Tribunal, he is before this Court. The brief undisputed fact of the matter is as follows. In pursuance of the recruitment notification issued by the State Level Police Recruitment Board (SLPRB) for the posts of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (SCTPC) (Civil) (A.R.) (APSP) (Men), the petitioner applied in the year 2008. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. He was qualified. He also cleared the physical tests. He was provisionally selected, subject to verification of records, antecedents and medical examination. But, the Chairman of the SLPRB cancelled his provisional selection. The reason was that during the antecedents' enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in Cr. No. 141 of 2002 for the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, (IPC) of P.S. Naidupet in which he committed rape on a minor girl and was involved in a criminal act of mortal turpitude.

(2.) Aggrieved by the cancellation of provisional selection, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 4992 of 2009 in which he sought for a direction to extend the benefit of the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 85, dated 07.02.2009. Be it noted by the said order, the Government issued special relaxation to appoint selected candidates of the recruitment notification, who suppressed information with regard to their previous employment as required under Rule 3(G) of the Andhra Pradesh Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 (the Special Rules, for brevity), subject to certain conditions. By that time, the petitioner was admitted in a criminal case being C.C. No. 166 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur. Taking this into consideration, the learned Tribunal passed orders on 12.08.2010 in favour of the petitioner directing the respondents to pass fresh orders regarding his selection. Thereafter, the Chairman of SLPRB reconsidered the matter and rejected the case of the petitioner. In the order being Memorandum, dated 06.09.2010, the Chairman gave the following reasons.

(3.) The petitioner again approached the learned Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 629 of 2011. Therein he contended that in view of the acquittal in criminal case, reliance placed on Rules 3(F) and 3(G)(vi) of the Special Rules is unjust and violative of the Fundamental Rights and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was further contended that even in cases of conviction, all offences do not involve moral turpitude. The O.A. was opposed by the respondents contending that the petitioner was an accused in a criminal case involving moral turpitude and therefore the order of the Chairman rejecting his candidature is justified. A reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Chief Secretary v. Susheel Kumar, 1996 11 SCC 605.