PARVESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite due selection, the respondents have declined to appoint the petitioner as Constable on the ground that, though he is acquitted of the offence alleged, but it was involving 'moral turpitude'. Can this be done, is the question begging an Tanswer? What is meant by the term 'moral turpitude' is another question arising in this case. What good is this acquittal for the petitioner if it is to continue to stigmatize him. Respondents would wish to place reliance on self serving instructions issued by them to justify this action.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner applied for a post of Constable on 05.10.2007 in response to 1940 posts so advertised. The petitioner is a Scheduled Caste candidate and belongs to District Mewat. The petitioner qualified in physical test and possessed the requisite educational qualifications. He was found fit and called for joining duty as a Constable. Even thereafter, the petitioner was not issued belt number, which was so issued to the remaining selected candidates. The petitioner accordingly represented on 11.10.2008. He gave an application also in this regard. He, however, was sent back to his home with an,assurance that he would be informed about the reasons within a week or so. Thus, the petitioner was expelled from the training and was informed that this was due to the fact that he was involved in a criminal case in the year 2005.

(3.) The petitioner indeed was involved in a criminal case for offences under Sections 323, 325, 307, 506, 34 IPC but was acquitted after trial. Copy of the judgment has been placed on record as Annexure P6. Aggrieved against this action, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 18395 of 2008, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat that writ petition as a representation and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. Superintendent of Police, Mewat (respondent No.4) passed an order on 11.11.2008 that the petitioner was rightly selected for the post of Constable in Haryana and disposed of the representation accordingly. Matter thereafter appears to have been dealt with by Commandant 4th Battalion, H.A.P. Madhuban, who on 24.12.2008, rejected the representation. The reasons as can be discerned from the impugned order rejecting the representation, are that the petitioner was acquitted of the offence involving moral turpitude by extending benefit of doubt and so the instructions dated 13.11.2007 would not apply. The petitioner was, thus, not found eligible for allotment of Constabulary Number. He is again before the Court to challenge the said order.