PUSHPRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS of the case are that the petitioner appeared in the selection test for recruitment on the post of constable. He was required to appear in physical test and written examination, He was also required to fill up a form contained in Annexure-R/2 which was filled up on 6. 4. 1993. The petitioner was selected as revealed in Annexure-P/2 dated 27. 3. 1993. Thereafter, formalities were completed which included filling up of the form contained in Annexure-R/2 dated 6. 4. 1993.

(2.) OTHER persons who appeared with the petitioner in the said recruitment process, were appointed as constables whereas the name of the petitioner was omitted. The petitioner made a representation vide Annexure-P/4 when he was informed by the Superintendent of Police, Chhntarpur that during verification of character, the name of the petitioner was found to have figured as accused person in Crime No. 70/1993. Accordingly, the appointment was denied to the petitioner. It will not be out of place to mention here that trial of the case relating to Crime No. 70/1993 concluded in acquittal on 26. 9. 2002 contained in Annexure-P/5. In the light of the same, the petitioner further made representation and made a prayer for issuance of appointment order. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 24. 6. 2003 contained in Annexure-P/1, it was informed that the petitioner did not furnish correct information in Annexure-R/2 and therefore he was disqualified.

(3.) IT is contended by Shri N. S. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the petitioner that nothing has been suppressed, in Annexure-R/2 and the impugned order contained in Annexure-P/1 is not sustainable in law being illegal and arbitrary.