RANBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been denied appointment as Constable in Haryana Police after selection when it was revealed during verification of character antecedents that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in FIR No. 188 dated 20.08.2009 under S. 394 IPC registered at Police Station Shivaji Colony, Rohtak for committing dacoity. The petitioner had applied under advertisement dated 24.07.2008 in which there was a term and condition which reads:--

(2.) In this case, there was a clear term in the advertisement itself that those who have criminal cases registered or are under investigation or pending trial or who have been convicted need not apply. No doubt the FIR was registered after the application forms were submitted and there was nothing then against the petitioner. The question is whether the condition would apply in the future as well and what would acquittal mean or entail in the circumstances where both the FIR and acquittal took place after start but before closing of the recruitment process.

(3.) The argument of Dr. Redhu that the impugned order dated 28.01.2013 (P-8) rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment and grant of constabulary number is non-speaking and cryptic is attractive in first flush but the justification given in the written statement is sufficient to non-suit the petitioner that it is not desirable to appoint the petitioner as a constable in a disciplined force especially in the light of the dicta laid down in Sushil Kumar case.