MAHI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his case and appoint him on the post of Constable (G. D. ).

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement Annex. 1 dated 14. 6. 2005 inviting applications from the eligible persons for appointment on the post of constable (General Duty, Band, Horse Rider and Operator ). THE petitioner finding himself eligible submitted application for appointment on the post of Constable (G. D.) vide Annex. 2. THE petitioner appeared in the examination and thereafter he was called to appear in the physical test/ interview vide call letter dated 24. 2. 2006 Annex. 3. THE petitioner appeared in the physical test held on 12. 3. 2006 and on 13. 3. 2006 he was declared passed and the result thereof was published in the newspaper vide Annex. 4. However, the petitioner was not issued the appointment letter and as such has not been appointed, therefore, he sent representations vide Annex. 5 and Annex. 6. Despite representations, the respondents did not provide the petitioner appointment and hence this writ petition.

(3.) IN Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and Others vs. Sushil Kumar (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though the respondent was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable in the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences.