JAI GOPAL CHOUKSEY Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, having applied for appointment as a sub -Inspector, successfully competed with others in the selection test and was selected for training and appointment. Normally a selected sub -Inspector, like the petitioner, should have been sent for training but he was not so sent whereas others who were selected with him and were junior in the select list were sent for training. The petitioner is alleged to have made enquiries and learnt that he was not being sent for training because he belonged to Bharatiya Janta Party and was detained in connection with the movement launched by the said political party in the year 1982. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court for necessary direction in the matter by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE respondents have filed their return and have admitted that the petitioner was selected for appointment as a sub -Inspector and should normally have been sent for training. It is, however, submitted that on verification of petitioner's character by police authorities, it was found that he has suffered imprisonment and had been prosecuted for criminal offences. Because of the imprisonment and criminal cases it was held that the petitioner was not suitable for employment and hence he has not been sent for training. It is further submitted that the petitioner is also guilty of giving false information in col. 26 of the application form. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court.

(3.) A perusal of col. 26 of the application (Annexure R -2) indicates that the petitioner has stated that he was not actually, arrested but was required to give a bond. He has also stated that he was neither fined nor found guilty. At the end, he has stated that charges against the petitioner were dropped because of a settlement with his party. Clearly, therefore, it is not a case where the petitioner had suppressed information about his past political activity and the criminal case. From the return, it appears that the petitioner had taken part In BHARAT BUND ANDOLAN in the Year 1980 and was apprehended in that connection. It further appears that in the Year 1982 he had taken part in public demonstration against increase in bus fare by staging a "DHARNA" before the authorities in Bhopal City. Though in the return it is stated that the petitioner has been found to be a member of the recognized political party, there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that he is continuing in any of his political activities. It is not stated in the return that the petitioner was sentenced in any case or actually arrested in connection with any criminal case. Apparently, therefore, the information given by the petitioner in his application form is neither incorrect nor false, Under the circumstances, the petitioner could not be refused employment on the alleged suppression of information regarding his past character and conduct. Indeed, the secret file of the case indicates that even the Police Officials were of this opinion in the beginning, but later on started doubting the correctness of this conclusion and decided to seek the opinion of the respondent -State Government.