MADHAV SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common legal issue in these bunch of petitions is as to whether the petitioners selected after due process on various posts can be denied appointment/s be removed subsequent to their appointment for reason of alleged suppression of fact relating to their criminal prosecution in petty cases where they were acquitted before the commencement of the recruitment process, if the relevant fact was not disclosed to the appointing authority as required. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the state of law with regard to the denial of appointment/termination/cancellation of employment, even where acquittal has followed in a criminal case particularly prior to the commencement of the selection process is not a matter of black and white where appointments can be mechanically denied to duly selected candidate on the mere fact of the non disclosure/suppression no matter how irrelevant such criminal prosecution would be to ascertain the suitability of a selected candidate. This position has now been enunciated in detail by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Versus Union of India and Ors. (Special Leave Petition in [C] No.20525/2011 decided on 21.07.2016 particularly para 30 whereof, where it has been held as under:-

(2.) Counsel for the parties have also admitted that a similar view taken by this Court in the case of Kamal Singh Meena versus Union of India and Ors., 2016(3) WLC (Raj.) 687, has also to be considered, therein it was held in paras 15, 16 and 17 as under:-

(3.) Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are set-aside. The petitioners are directed to file representations before the respective Appointing Authorities for the reconsideration of their cases in the context of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and this Court in the case of Kamal Singh Meena (supra). The Appointing Authority is directed to dispose of the representation/s filed by the petitioner/s by a reasoned and speaking order with reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and this Court in the case of Kamal Singh Meena (supra) within a period of eight weeks of the receipt of the representation/s. Interim orders granted by this Court in the writ petitions, where applicable, shall continue till the disposal of the representations and for a period of 15 days thereafter for the aggrieved petitioners to approach this Court afresh if so required.