NAZIR AHMAD DAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated the case of petitioners' is that they was recruited in respondent/Police Department by Director General in 2007 during his on spot recruitment drive and enlisted as such under order No. DGP/D - Onspot/2002 dated: July, 2002 figuring at S. No. 4 and 70 respectively where after they were asked to file relevant forms and deposit advance ration money of Rs. 1000/ -and report to District Police Line, Pulwama and supplied uniforms etc. While performing their duties as such they were informed that their services had been terminated on the basis of a communication from SSP, Anantnag under his No. Estt/A -4/2002/23675 -77 dated: 8.10.2002 for having concealed their actual residential particulars with malafide intention to deceive the senior officers by showing their residence in village Zewan instead of Noorpora Tehsil Tral to which they actually belonged. They represented against the same but finding no response have agitated the matter through this writ petition for quashment of their termination order No. Pers/DGP/A -98/50716 -17 dated: 12.10.2002 and No. 1881 of 2003 dated: 3.6.2003 along with directions for their continued employment in the respondent/department. Grounds pleaded are that the alleged misrepresentation regarding place of petitioners would not make any difference because in any case employment was to be made for district Pulwama to which they admittedly belonged and the fact that recruitment process was conducted at Zewan would not mean that only residents of that place could apply, so they could not be thrown out after having been appointed on regular basis in view of their complete fitness and eligibility. In reply respondents have pleaded that cancellation of recruitment ordered against petitioners was fully genuine and legally justified as they had concealed their actual place of residence and misrepresented to be the residents Zewan while they actually hail from Noorpora Tehsil Tral resulting in denial of opportunity to rightful candidates, as the main objective of conducting sport recruitment was to provide opportunities to locals to get enrolled in police department.

(2.) DURING course of learned Counsel have reiterated contents of their pleadings as aforesaid Mr. Noor appearing for petitioner has, however, invited attention of this Court to a judgment passed in SWP No. 169/2003 captioned 'Sabzar Ahmad and Ors. v. State and Ors., instituted by certain similarly placed persons who were recruited on spot like petitioners and subsequently their recruitment was cancelled exactly in the same manner as done in case of petitioners on similar grounds which stands set aside. Mr. Rathore while admitting that petitioners were similarly placed with writ petitioners in that case stated that they could not take benefit of the judgment passed therein and confirmed in the LPA because they had agitated their cause belatedly. Accordingly before proceeding further to consider the matter on pleas agitated in the petition, it would be appropriate to notice the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 125 of 2006 on 3.9.2005. Facts leading to that litigation and the pleas taken by respective sides may be reproduced from the above said judgment verbatim: Short facts of the case are that in the year 2002 the Police Department made a drive to recruit constables in different districts. In May/June 2002 a team of police officers went to Shopian in Pulwama District and selected seventy persons including the appellants. They were asked to deposit Rs. 1000 as ration advance and report at the District Police Lines Pulwama on 11th June, 2002. They were given uniform and also assigned work. All of a sudden vide order No. Pers/DGPD/126 -P -98 -237616 -17 dated: 24th July, 2002 the selection was cancelled on the ground that they had disclosed their place of residence as Shop -ian/Pulwama whereas on verification they were found to be resident of Tral. Aggrieved, they approach this Court in the connected writ petition contending, inter alia, that district -wise selection was not in accordance with the Constitution and the cancellation of selection the ground that they belong to Tral and not Pulwama was not correct. They sought quashing of the said communication dated 24th July, 2002 and a mandamus to treat them to be in service as police constables. The respondents in their counter affidavit stated that the Police Department had made on spot recruitment drive in different districts/places and constables recruited. While the selection was being made at Shopian the appellants who belong to Tral appeared before the team of officers and declaring their place of residence as Shopian, participated in the recruitment process. The respondents stated that similar recruitment drive was held earlier at Tral on 29th May, 2002 and sixty nine persons were selected. If the appellants were interested they should have participated in the tests at Tral. After noticing the pleas and counter pleas of parties as aforesaid, Division Bench reproduced the finding of writ court impugned before them as under:.(If) it is found that the petitioners with an intention to mislead the authorities gave an incorrect address, they are definitely not entitled for any relief and appointment in the department, but if it is found that the petitioners had come with clean hands, they had disclosed their permanent residence and were, as has been pleaded by them, temporarily residing at Shopian, it cannot be said that the petitioners had any intention to deceive the authorities. It would be appropriate to add that this part of writ court judgment was preceded by quashment of the order of cancellation of appointment paved against petitioners therein with a direction for their reinstatement on the condition as quoted above which was impugned by the writ petitioners. However, while discussing the matter further. Hon'ble Court addressed the constitutional aspect of the matter to opine as under: Clause (2) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India lays down, 'No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, decent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the -State'. In the eye of Law, therefore, the appellants cannot be held to be ineligible for appointment on the ground that they are residents of Tral and not Shopian. It was a matter of administrative convenience that selection/recruitment was held at difference places. That does not mean that resident of Tral could not compete in the selection held at Shopian. In this view of the matter the direction of the learned Single Judge quoted hereinabove regarding the proposed enquiry as to the place of residence of the appellants was not warranted. It is true that a false declaration as to place of residence etc. may disentitle a person to appointment. However, in the facts and circumstances, it may not be necessary to go into the question whether the declaration as to place of residence was deliberate or bonafide. The purpose could be served by permitting the respondents to make verification regarding character antecedents of the appellant. It goes without saying that recruitment under the State is subject to verification of one's antecedents and where on verification it is found that the person does not deserve employment under the State on account of moral turpitude or involvement in any anti -national or subversive activities and the like in the past, it is open to the competent authority to terminate his employment after giving him opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the afore quoted part of the order of the learned Single Judge and the direction that the order will not confer any right of reinstatement are set aside. Instead is clarified that the reinstatement of the appellants shall be subject to verification of their character antecedents'.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY the petition is disposed of in terms of above quoted judgments with a direction to respondents to reinstate petitioners in service in accordance with the ratio of above quoted judgment subject of course to the conditions acknowledged therein.