RAM MOHAN SHARMA Vs. NATIONAL FERTILIZER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by action of the respondents in not issuing appointment order to the petitioner and not permitting him to join duty even though it is the case of the petitioner that he was found eligible in the selection process for appointment.

(2.) On a advertisement being issued by the respondents for appointment to the post of Technician Apprentice (Laboratory), petitioner participated in the selection process conducted by the respondents in the year 1998 and after due selection was empaneled for appointment. However, after filling of requisite attestation forms and verification forms and completing all the formalities petitioner was not appointed. On enquiry it was indicated to the petitioner that in view of his involvement in a criminal case under section 376 of IPC, which is pending against him he cannot be appointed. Challenging this action petitioner has filed this petition and it is the case of the petitioner that in the verification and attestation forms submitted by him petitioner has disclosed all the facts about the pendency of the criminal case. He has not suppressed or withheld any informations about the criminal case, petitioner has been discharged in the cases and by bringing on record orders of the Criminal Court discharging the petitioner as contained in Annexures P-3 and P-4 Shri Jitendra Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that when there is no suppression of fact and when the criminal case because of which petitioner was not granted appointment has come to an end in discharging the petitioner, petitioner cannot be denied appointment. Referring to various judgements Shri Jitendra Maheshwari has tried to emphasis that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground for denying appointment to the petitioner.

(3.) Per contra Shri Ankur Modi, learned counsel for the respondents argued that when attestation forms and others forms submitted by the petitioner were considered and on verification from the Police station, Guna it was indicated that a case under Section 376 read with section 420 of IPC has been registered against the petitioner, he has been in Judicial custody for a period of 94 days and the character verification received from the District Magistrate and Supdt. of Police. Gure vide Annexures R-2 and R-3 indicated that petitioner was involved in certain serious offences, therefore in view of Rule 1.24.1 of the Service Manual as applicable to the respondents establishment respondents have denied appointment to the petitioner. It is the case of the respondents that apart from suppressing the fact of judicial custody for 94 days, respondents have no confidence in the petitioner and in view of his background and past antecedent it would not in the interest of establishment to give appointment to such person. It is, therefore, argued that no mandamus can be issued when employer is unwilling to enter into a contract with such a person.