RANBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Court was confronted with a term in an advertisement inviting applications for filling up the posts of Constable Drivers (Male) in Haryana Police which barred a candidate from consideration against whom a criminal case stands registered and is under investigation or pending trial and who has been convicted by a court of law. There was nothing against the petitioner when he applied. During the process of selection, an FIR was lodged against him for his alleged involvement in a case of dacoity. This was in August, 2009. However, during the selection process, the petitioner was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rohtak. On acquittal, he made an appeal to the police administration to issue him a belt number and induct him into the constabulary. The petitioner made 9 representations from June, 2010 to December, 2012 claiming appointment and finally a legal notice dated 23rd December, 2012 was served on the respondent State to vindicate his grievance failing which he would take recourse to law. The Director General of Police, Haryana rejected these requests on 28th January, 2013.

(2.) THE issue before the Court which I was called upon to decide was framed in the 4th para. of the order under review which was phrased as follows: - "The question is whether the condition would apply in the future as well and what would acquittal mean or entail in the circumstances when both the FIR and the acquittal took place after start but before closing of the recruitment process."

(3.) THE actual date of closing of the recruitment process and appointments of the selected candidates was not mentioned in the petition nor is the appeal against my order and in the review application. For the purposes of the review, I would assume that it was continuing and had not ended. When I passed the order I found the impugned order non -speaking and cryptic, as it more certainly is, but chose to go by the defence of the State in the written statement. Though the petitioner was recommended in December, 2010 and selected at serial No.39 it was subject to verification of his character and antecedents. In the process of verification, it was discovered that a criminal case was registered in August, 2008 but the petitioner was acquitted in January, 2011. The offence alleged was under Section 394 IPC which involved moral turpitude being a case of dacoity. The acquittal by the trial court was based on the complainant and the eye witnesses turning hostile. He was not offered appointment due to this reason. In this background, I formed opinion that the condition precedent in the advertisement was so incipient in its exclusion that its design will run through till the end of the recruitment process sufficient to deny appointment even though there was no disability to start with but developed on the way. In the judgment and order the facts of the case I thought were of little importance in decision -making. In reaching this conclusion, the dicta laid down in Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and others v. Sushil Kumar, 1996 11 SCC 605 and my own opinion expressed in CWP No.12693 of 2012, Pritam Singh v. State of Haryana and others decided on 1st August, 2013 was applied. It has been observed in Pritam Singh's case as under: - "It is well settled that mere selection does not give an indefeasible right to appointment. The Government is well within its right to withhold appointment on a lingering doubt as to the moral standards of a candidate who aspires appointment in the uniformed police force. In taking such a decision, no stigma is cast; no moral judgment is involved; suspicion alone is sufficient to deny appointment to a job which requires the protection of life and liberty of citizens by the police. The defence of the State in response to this petition based on instructions of the Director General of Police, Haryana issued vide memo dated 2.7.2007 (R -3) and 13.11.2007 (R -4) which are salutary inasmuch they restrict entry of candidates charged during a trial with offences involving moral turpitude but acquitted merely on technical grounds or on account of giving benefit of doubt may not be considered for employment as constables. The purpose and object behind the aforesaid Notifications and directions was to restrict the entry of persons of criminal background involving heinous crime and offence bearing on moral turpitude. There is no place for such people in the disciplined force."