MOHD. FAIM ANSARI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally.

(2.) Petitioner is aggrieved of his non -appointment as Police Constable (G.D). It is urged that having passed the written examination (Annexure P/3) and Physical Proficiency Test and the Interview (Annexure P/4), the petitioner was declared selected and posting order was issued on 31.7.2013 (Annexure P/4); whereby, he was allotted the posted of Constable (G.D) under Superintendent of Police, Panna. It is contended that the petitioner was not given joining on the frivolous ground that there were criminal cases registered against him; whereas the facts are that he had already disclosed the fact that prosecution for offence under Sections 294, 324/34, 506 paragraph 2 IPC ended into compromise on 28.3.2011 on the basis whereof he was acquitted of these charges. In respect of charge under Section 452 of IPC, the petitioner, it is urged has been acquitted vide order dated 20.5.2014 in Criminal Case No. 506/2007. It is accordingly submitted that non -appointment of the petitioner on the ground of criminal case is not sustainable.

(3.) Respondents have opposed the relief sought. It is urged that the document Annexure P/5 is not an appointment order but an offer of appointment subject to character/police verification and, therefore, does not create any right in the petitioner for appointment. It is urged that on Character/Police verification it ws found that not only offence under Sections 452/323, 294, 336, 506 B/34 IPC and under Section 25/27 Arms Act was registered in the year 2007, cases under Gambling Act has also been registered and petitioner was punished thrice vide offence No. 115/2009 and 165/2009 under Section 3 of Gambling Act. As a result whereof the offer of appintment tendered to the petitioner was not carried forward.