ANIL KUMAR BALMIK Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 29-07-2019 passed by respondent No.3, by which the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Police Constable (Sweeper) has been rejected on the ground that a criminal case was pending against the petitioner.

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that an advertisement was issued for Recruitment on the Post of Constable in the Police Department and the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Constable (Sweeper). It appears that the advertisement was issued sometime in the year 2016. The petitioner was declared successful and was called upon to fill up his Character Verification Form. It is the case of the petitioner that he has disclosed that a criminal case was registered against him, but he has been acquitted by the Court of JMFC, Sabalgarh, District Morena by judgment dated 11/03/2017. It is submitted that in spite of acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, he was denied his appointment vide order dated 01/08/2017.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No.6044/2017 which was dismissed by order dated 25/04/2018. The said order of the Single Judge was successfully challenged by the petitioner in Writ Appeal No.587/2018, which was allowed by order dated 4/5/2018 and the matter was relegated back to the authorities for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the respondents have once again considered the case of the petitioner and have declared him unfit by order dated 29/07/2019 on the ground that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for offence under Sections 336 , 457 of IPC. It is the case of the petitioner that no offence under Section 457 of IPC was ever registered against him. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the instructions dated 5/6/2003 and those instructions were withdrawn by order dated 24/07/2018 and, therefore, the instructions dated 5/6/2003 are no more in existence. Furthermore, it is submitted that looking to the nature of the duties which were to be discharged by the petitioner, the registration of a criminal case in which the petitioner has secured acquittal will not have any bearing and the impugned order is contrary to the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others , reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471. It is further submitted that the respondents have failed to apply their mind and perverse reasons have been assigned for arriving at the impugned decision. It is further submitted that the valid reasons are heart-beat of the decision and while passing the impugned order, the respondents must disclose cogent reasons for denying him appointment. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 29- 07-2019 is in direct conflict with the judgment passed by the Writ Appellate Court in Writ Appeal No.46/2018.