DEEPAK VISHNOI Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dtd. 16/3/2023 passed by Commandant, 23rd Battalion SAF, Bhopal in file No.23rd Battalion/SAF/Estt./P.741-A/2023 by which candidature of petitioner for the post of Constable has been rejected.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of present petition in short are that an advertisement was issued in the year 2017 for recruitment to the post of Constable in 23rd Battalion SAF, Bhopal. Petitioner appeared in said examination and was declared successful and accordingly, petitioner was allocated to 23rd Battalion SAF. In Character Verification Form, petitioner had specifically pointed out criminal cases, which were registered against him i.e. Criminal Case No.1368/2011 and Criminal Case No.713/2013 for offence under Ss. 294, 452, 323, 325/34, 427, 506 Part-II of IPC, which was pending in the Court of JMFC Harda. Thereafter, by order dtd. 29/11/2018, petitioner was declared disqualified from Police Services. Accordingly, petitioner preferred W.P. No.2651/2019 before this Court and after considering submissions made by counsel for the parties, this Court passed an order dtd. 22/9/2022 thereby directing respondents to decide representation. In compliance of order passed by this Court, petitioner submitted a detailed representation. However, by impugned order dtd. 16/3/2023, representation has been rejected and as consequence thereof, candidature of petitioner for the post of Constable in SAF has been rejected.

(3.) It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that Apex Court in the case of Pramod Singh Kirar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. decided on 2/12/2022 in Civil Appeal No.8934-8935/2022 has held that since settlement had taken place between the parties, which resulted in acquittal of candidate, therefore, he cannot be denied appointment only on the ground that earlier he was prosecuted for offence under Sec. 498-A of IPC. It is further submitted that once petitioner has been acquitted, therefore, there cannot be any hurdle in appointment of petitioner specifically when there is a scarcity of government jobs. Merely because petitioner was prosecuted in two different criminal cases, same may not be hurdle for denying a government Job.