VINOD JAYANT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner has challenged the order Annexure-P/1 dated 9-6-2011 and prayed for a direction to the respondents to act on the offer of appointment (Annexure- P/16).

(2.) THE petitioner submitted his candidature for the post of Sub-Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force (for short, "CISF"). The petitioner appeared in Central Police Organization Exam-2009 in this regard. The examination was conducted by Staff Selection Commission (for short, "SCC") at Raipur. After qualifying the written examination conducted by SCC, the petitioner received a called letter to undergo physical fitness test and medical examination. The petitioner successfully qualified in these examinations, copy of result of physical examination is filed by petitioner as Annexure-P/14. The petitioner was called for an interview by Annexure-P/15. After interview and due verification of his documents, the order dated 9th November, 2010 Annexure-P/16 was passed. In this order, petitioner was given offer of appointment and it was stated that the petitioner is provisionally appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector/Executive in CISF in the scale of 9300 - 34800 with grade pay of RS.4200. However, by Annexure-P/1, petitioner's appointment was cancelled/withdrawn. It is stated that petitioner was not found suitable for the post of Sub-Inspector in CISF by issuing Annexure-P/1. The petitioner sent a legal notice dated 24-6-2011 through his counsel. In turn, the respondents replied the legal notice Annexure-P/19 dated 9-9-2011. In this reply it is stated that petitioner was involved in criminal case. His case was examined and he was not found suitable for the post of SI and, therefore, his provisional appointment was cancelled.

(3.) OF attestation form, various information was desired from the petitioner. The relevant portion of the form and entries made by the petitioner reads as under : - Was any FIR ever lodged against you in the past ?.Yes <IMG>JUDGEMENT_433_MPH3_2012Img1.jpg</IMG> 4. The respondents have shown mainly two reasons for cancelling the offer of petitioner's appointment. In preliminary submission of the return, it is stated that in order dated 8-11-2010 Annexure-R/1 (Para 8), it was specifically mentioned that if answer to the questionnaire is "Yes", the petitioner must submit complete details of the case to the Directorate. It is stated that petitioner has not filed the copy of order of acquittal with his aforesaid verification form, this was one of the reason for cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. The second reason is that in CISF which is an Armed Force of India, the post of SI is vital post. Considering the nature of the duties and responsibilities of SI, the petitioner is unfit for appointment.