GIRRAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein by way of instant writ petition is seeking appointment to the post of constable in Haryana police.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that by the advertisement dtd. 20/7/2008, the State of Haryana advertised 5456 posts of Constable for recruitment in the Haryana police. The petitioner applied as BC-A category for the vacancies lying at District Police Lines Palwal. At the time of filling the application form, FIR No. 39 dtd. 19/1/2006 under Ss. 498- A/406/323/506 IPC registered at Police Station City Palwal, District Faridabad, was pending adjudication in the court at Palwal. This information regarding the pendency of the same was supplied by the petitioner while filling up the application form. The petitioner was selected as his name appeared at serial No. 34 in the merit list prepared for BC-A candidates. The District Magistrate Palwal was asked to get the verification done of the petitioner vide a letter bearing No. 2084-85 dtd. 13/3/2012. Despite being meritorious, the petitioner was not selected and persons with lower merit were offered letters of appointment. The petitioner was informed that his name has been withheld on account of the pendency of the FIR against him. It is submitted that he was falsely implicated in the FIR on account of matrimonial disharmony between the petitioner and his wife and such matrimonial dispute cannot be termed as an offence involving moral turpitude. The petitioner requested the authorities that he may be allotted a Belt No. and since his request was not exceeded to, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No. 8211 of 2012, which was disposed of by giving a direction to the respondent No. 3 to decide the representation within a period of 4 weeks. The representation was decided and the claim of the petitioner was rejected by order dtd. 27/10/2012 on the ground that all those candidates against whom cases of moral turpitude are lodged would not be given appointment. Aggrieved against the order rejecting the representation, the instant petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. Mahipal Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would contend that the petitioner had the necessary merit to be appointed as a constable, but has been denied on the ground that he had concealed in the attestation form about the pendency of the criminal case. It is argued that this fact had been mentioned in the application form and in any case an offence under Sec. 498A/ 406 IPC would not constitute an offence involving moral turpitude. It is also submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable as the appointment has been denied to him holding that he is involved in offences pertaining to moral turpitude, which is not correct. Learned counsel relies upon letter dtd. 26/3/1975 wherein the State Government has enlisted all the Sec. under the Indian Penal Code which would fall under an offence involving moral turpitude. It is submitted that offences under Ss. 498-A/406 IPC are not the offences involving moral turpitude and hence cannot be denied the appointment. Learned counsel also points out that instructions have been issued on 13/11/2007 wherein it has been directed that those candidates against whom cases are pending should be considered for allotment of constabulary number, except those facing investigation/trial or have been convicted in offences pertaining to moral turpitude. It is also submitted that the petitioner now stands exonerated of all charges against him by the trial court on 12/11/2013, and this fact has not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order.