STATE OF H.P. Vs. SANDEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dt. 28/9/2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition (Original Application) No. 664 of 2020 titled Sandeep Kumar vs. State of H.P and others, whereby the petition preferred by the petitioner/respondent herein has been allowed and the order(s) dt. 7/1/2011 (Annexure A-4), 7/6/2012 (Annexure A-7), 5/5/2014 (Annexure A-9) and 17/6/2016 (Annexure A-10) have been quashed and set aside with a direction to the appellants-State to offer appointment to the respondent against the post of Constable in 6th IRBn. Sirmaur, District Shimla or other Battalions It has further been directed that in case the respondent has become over age, then he shall be offered appointment by exercising the power of relaxation. It has also been clarified that the appointment of the respondent f r all intents and purposes shall be prospective as from the date of his appointment and further he shall be ranked at the bottom of the seniority list as on the date of appointment and he shall not claim any benefit whatsoever prior to the date of his appointment.

(2.) The grievance of the appellants against the judgment is to the effect that the respondent, at the time of filling up the forms for the post of Constable had mentioned "No" against column No. 15, which is to the effect that "Have you ever been arrested/involved in criminal case", whereas the respondent was involved in two cases, qua which FIR Nos. 3 of 2006 dt. 4/1/2006 under Sec. 160 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and 101/2006 dt. 9/5/2006 under Sec. 325 read with Sec. 34 of IPC, were registered against him. Since the respondent had furnished the false declaration and suppressed the material facts, he was not offered the appointment for the post of Constable. It has further been asserted that since instructions dated 22.07 2016 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Himachal Pradesh stipulate that if the declaration submitted by the candidate is found incorrect, the appointing authority shall have a right for cancellation of appointment, thus the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable in law.

(3.) The learned Dep ty Advocate General has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 and contended that since the respondent had misrepresented and concealed the material fact that he was not ever involved in any criminal case, while filling up the form, the competent authority had rightly not offered him the appointment and it is for the employer to see that the person is not fit to be offered appointment.