LAWS(J&K)-1998-3-30

ABDUL LATIF THOKAR, S/O ALI MOHD THOKAR R/O LASJAN, BADGAM Vs. STATE OF J&K THROUGH ADDL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT

Decided On March 11, 1998
Abdul Latif Thokar Appellant
V/S
State Of JAndK Through Addl Chief Secretary, Home Department Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , it is admitted was selected for the post of Police constable but has not been appointed because the appointing authority did not find him suitable in view of his involvement in a criminal case pending trial in the Designated court under the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (for short TADA hereafter). He challenges this action of the respondents on the ground that failure to appoint him on the post for which he was selected tantamounts to holding him guilty of the charges when the court has yet to return its finding. Such an action, according to the petitioner, offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) MR . Mohd Ayub Bhat, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, argued that involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case irrespective of the nature of charges cannot be a justification to deny him appointment after he has been duly selected by the Selection Committee. The action on the part of appointing authority, holding him not suitable for the post, according to the learned counsel, is arbitrary and, therefore not sustainable.

(3.) MR . Qadiri, learned S.A.A.G. on the other hand submitted that merely because petitioner was selected for the post of police constable it does not follow that he has a right to be appointed. Such a selection, according to Mr. Qadiri, is provisional and subject to character the antecedents verification of the candidate. Since on verification of his antecedents, the petitioner was found involved in FIR No. 193 of 1994 registered in Police station Saddar, Srinagar in which he is being tried under Section 3 of the TADA and 25 of the Arms Act, the competent authority came to conclusion that he is not a person suitable to be recruited in the disciplined force. The conclusion of the appointing authority in the circumstances of the case, according to Mr. Qadiri, cannot be termed arbitrary or unwarranted.