ALOK GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CAN a dutiful citizen be discriminated in the matter of employment or appointment to any public post or office under the State? This short but constitutionally potent question has arisen for decision in this case.

(2.) THE facts are few and admitted and indeed I have merely to refer to the return of the State to tell the story. With the return is annexed a copy of the order dated 1st May 1976 rendered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi in Criminal Case No. 23/76, to meet the challenge made in this case to the action of the State, denying to petitioner equal opportunity in the matter of public employment. Alok Gupta, the petitioner, figures at item No. 5 of the Select List (Annexure F-3) which contains in all names. The list was prepared for appointments to be made to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor under Government of Madhya Pradesh. This list is dated 4th July 1984. Except the petitioner and Anr. , Kamal Kishore, it is admitted, others have got appointment.

(3.) IN the return only, State has given the reason to deny appointment to the petitioner relying on the order above referred (Annexure R-1 of the return ). It is necessary, therefore, to read the order. The petitioner was charge-sheeted along with three others on being apprehended by the police for attempting to distribute pamphlets of Lok Sangharsh Samiti on 5th December 1975. They were raising slogans against the Government in the state of emergency. In their statements under Section 313 Cr. P. C. all the accused persons, including petitioner Alok, pleaded guilty and they were convicted under Rule 33 (5), 43 (5) and 46 (5) of the D. I. Rules, 1971. Each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months on each count and the sentences were made to run concurrently in each case. In the return, at page 4, in the parawise reply to the grounds, it is stated that petitioner's selection was cancelled and no letter of appointment was issued to him because in the course of police verification it transpired that the petitioner was a convict and this fact was projected in Annexure R-1.