ANIL PRASAD CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the order dtd. 28/8/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing Writ Petition No.10057 of 2019, the writ petitioner is in appeal.

(2.) It is the case of the writ petitioner that he applied for the post of Police Constable and after facing the recruitment process, he was declared a successful candidate. He was allotted posting at Unit Narsinghpur. The petitioner submitted all the relevant documents and also made a declaration about his acquittal in a criminal case and submitted an affidavit to the aforesaid effect. He appeared before the scrutiny committee. Therefore, vide order dtd. 20/10/2018, he was informed that he was found ineligible for appointment. The said order was questioned by the petitioner by filing a Writ Petition being W.P. No.28492 of 2018 which was disposed off vide order dtd. 29/1/2019 directing respondent No.4 to decide fresh representation of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Imran vs State of Maharashtra and others passed in Civil Appeal No.10571 of 2018. The petitioner was again asked to appear before the scrutiny committee and thereafter he was again declared ineligible vide order dtd. 4/4/2019.

(3.) It is his further case that the authorities have adopted different yardsticks and discriminated the case of the petitioner as the persons who were charge- sheeted for serious offences have been granted appointment. It is his case that he was charge-sheeted for the offence under Sec. 327 of the IPC in which he has been acquitted on merits and not on the basis of compromise. Thereafter, in all fairness, the authorities should have considered the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post in question. The writ court has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the case and has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the employer is having every right to look into the antecedents of a candidate and it is within his discretion to grant appointment or not, and in terms of the judgment rendered in the case of Avtar Singh vs Union of India reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, the employer cannot be compelled to grant appointment.