HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2)(b) Description of the Case. Writ Petition No. 1316 of 2004 (S/S) Mohammad Aslam … Petitioner Versus Director General of Police (Uttaranchal) District Dehradun & others …Respondents Approved for reporting. ____________________ Not approved for reporting. Date of Decision 22nd June, 2005. Initial of Judge. IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1316 of 2004 (S/S) Mohammad Aslam S/o Sri Subedin R/o Village Dhalipur, Police Station Vikas Nagar District Dehradun …Petitioners Versus 1. Director General of Police (Uttaranchal) District Dehradun 2. Senior Superintendent of Police District Dehradun 3. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary Home Uttaranchal Shashan District Dehradun …Respondents Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned standing counsel for the respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.: By way of the writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the training for the post of constable for which he stood selected. Brief facts giving rise to the petition are that the petitioner is a person belonging to the category of an O.B.C. and after passing his intermediate examination he applied for the post of constable in Police Department. As per the averment made in the petition, his name figured amongst the list of selected candidates in the category of O.B.C. at Si. No. 13 and he accordingly joined his training course. The petitioner has further averred that all of a sudden the training of the petitioner was vehemently stopped w.e.f. 24.04.2002 and the reason was shown that the petitioner had filed a wrong affidavit stating therein that no criminal case was pending against him. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was also decided vide order dated 10.07.2002. The petitioner thereafter, in compliance with the direction issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court filed a representation before the respondents, but his representation was rejected by the respondents, hence he has again approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. Counter and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. The respondents in the counter affidavit have stated that after the selection process completed, the affidavits regarding no criminal case from the selected candidate was required. In this regard, the petitioner filed the affidavit and has given the wrong information therein, therefore, his selection was cancelled. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The perusal of the record reveal that the petitioner has filed the writ petition before the Division Bench of this Court and the same was dismissed on 24.04.2002. This Court did not find any valid reason to interfere with the action of the respondents. The petitioner thereafter filed the Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it reveals that during that period he was however, acquitted from the charges of criminal case leveled against him. The Hon’ble Apex Court thereafter directed the petitioner to make appropriate representation to the concerned authorities for the said purpose. The petitioner, therefore, withdraw the petition and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. However, in compliance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the petitioner moved a representation before the respondents who have dismissed the same. It appears to me that the respondents have taken this aspect very seriously that there was a concealment of the material fact in the affidavit filed by the petitioner and the petitioner had deliberately concealed this fact that the criminal case was pending against him. It would be pertinent to quote the affidavit on 27.03.2002 filed by the petitioner before the respondents:- **HkkiFk&i= dk izk:Ik eSa vH;FkhZ eksgEen vlye iq= Jh eksgEen lqcsnhu fuoklh Bkyhiqj iks0vks0 Bkyhiqj Fkkuk fodkl uxj ftyk nsgjknwu 'kiFkiwoZd c;ku djrk gWw fd%& 1- ;g fd eSa Hkkjr dk ukxfjd gWwA gkW 2- ;g fd eSa fdlh jk"Vª fojks/kh ny@ laxBu dk dHkh lnL; ugha jgk gWw vkSj u gWA gkWa 3- ;g fd eSa dHkh Hkh fo/oald dk;ksaZ ¼lccflZr ,DvhfoVhl½ eas Hkkx ugha fy;k FkkA gkWa 4- ;g fd esjs fo:} dksbZ vkijkf/kd eqdnek@ ekeyk gLr{ksih; vFkok vgLr{ksih; esjh tkudkjh esa u dHkh iathd`r gqvk gS vkSj u gh dHkh fdlh ,sls vijkf/kd ekeyksa esa iqfyl us pkyku fd;k gS rFkk u gh esjs fo:} dksbZ iqfyl foospuk ¼iqfyl bUosLVhxzs’ku½ yfEcr gSA gkWa 5- ;g fd dHkh eq>s vkijkf/kd ekeys ¼gLr{ksih; vFkok vgLr{ksih;½ esa fxjQrkj ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh eSaus dHkh fdlh ,sls vijkf/kd ekeys esa U;k;ky; esa vkReleiZ.k fd;k gSA gkWa 6- ;g fd vijkf/kd ekeys tks esjs fo:} iathd`r gq, gSa ;k ftuesa esjk pkyku fd;k x;k Fkk tks esjs fo:} fopkjk/khu U;k;ky; vFkok foospuk/kh iqfyl gks mudk fooj.k fuEuor~ gS ;fn lwpuk HkkwU; gks rks HkkwU; HkkCn vafdr fd;k tk;A ¼’kwU;½ 7- ;g fd vijkf/kd ekeys tks esjs fo:} U;k;ky; esa pys vSj ftuesa nf.Mr gqvk@ nks’keqDr gqvk@ fMLpktZ gqvk mudk fooj.k fuEuor~ gSA ;fn lwpuk HkkwU; gks rks HkkwU; HkkCn vafdr fd;k tk;A 'kwU; 8- ;g fd eSa fdlh vkijkf/kd ekeys esa /kkjk&169 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds vUrxZr dHkh fjgk ugha gqvk gWw vFkok ftuesa fjgk gqvk gwW mudk fooj.k fuEuor~ gSA;fn lwpuk HkkwU; gks rks HkkwU; HkkCn vafdr fd;k tk;A 'kwU; 9- ;g fd eSa Hkkjr ljdkj@ jkT; ljdkj@ lkoZtfud laLFkku ¼ifCyd bUVj izkbtst½ o vUMj Vafdxa laLFkku }kjk mudh lsok ls dHkh lsok foeqDr ¼fMlfel½ ugha fd;k x;k gWawA gkWa 10- ;g fd vkosnu&i= esa HkkSf{kd ;ksX;rk vkSj tUe frfFk lEcU/kh izek.k&i= ,oa vk;q esa NqV o vkj{k.k dk ykHk izkIr djus lEcU/kh izek.k&Ik= tks esjs }kjk layXu fd;s x;s gSa iw.kZr;k lgh gSA lgh gSA 11- ;g fd vkosnu i= esa mfYyf[kr ;fn dksbZ ckr vlR; ik;h tk; vFkok fdlh lR; dks fNik;k x;k gks rks fcuk HkkrZ mRrjkapy ifqyl ls rqjUr i`Fkd dj fn;k tk; rFkk oS/kkfud n.M fn;k tk; tks eq>s ekU; gksxkA gkWa 12- ;g fd eSaus HkrhZ dszUnz nsgjknwu ¼Hkrh dsUnz dk uke½ ds vfrfjDr vU; fdlh HkrhZ dsUnz iq#’k dkUl0 dh bl HkrhZ gsrq vkosnu&i= tek ugha fd;k gSA ;fn ;g dFku vlR; ik;k tk; rks eq>s fcuk HkkrZ mRrjkapy iqfyl ls rqjUr i`Fkd dj fn;k tk; rFkk oS/kkfud n.M fn;k tk; tks eq>s ekU; gksxkA ekU; gSA 13¼d½ ;g fd eSa vfookfgr @ gkWa ¼[k½ ;g fd eSa fookfgr gWw rFkk ,d ls vf/kd thfor iRuh gSA ¼x½ ;g fd eSa fookfgr gWw rFkk ,d ls vf/kd thfor iRuh gSA 14- ;g fd ;fn HkkiFk&i= esa vafdr rF; xyr ik;s tk;s rks HkrhZ ds fy, esjk dksbZ nkok ugha gksxk vkSj ;fn HkrhZ ds fy, esjk dksbZ nkok ugha gksxk vkSj ;fn HkrhZ ds ckn Hkh Hkfo’; esa dksbZ rF; xyr ik;s tk;s rks eq>s fcuk HkkRkZ mRrjkapy iqfyl ls i`Fkd dj fn;k tk; rFkk oS/kkfud n.M fn;k tk; tks eq>s ekU; gksxkA ekU; gksxkA g0 eks0 vlye vfHklk{kh@HkkiFkdrkZ 15- ;g fd eSa eksgEen vlye iq= Jh eksgEen lqcsnhu HkkiFkiwoZd lR;kfir djrk gWaw fd bl HkkiFk&Ik= ds izLrj&1 ls 14 rd eSa mfYyf[kr rF; esjh O;fDrxr tkudkjh esa rFkk fo okl esa lR; gS budk dksbZ Hkh va’k vlR; o xyr ugha gS rFkk dksbZ Hkh egRoiw.kZ rF; fNik;k ugha x;k gS vkSj lHkh izLrj ij visf{kr lwpuk vafdr dh gSA vLrq bZ’oj esjh j{kk djsaA g0 eks0 vlye vfHklk{kh@ HkkiFkdrkZ** The perusal of the affidavit dated 27.03.2002 filed by the petitioner shows that in paragraph 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, he has furnished the wrong information. The petitioner has also mentioned in paragraph 11 that in case as to if this affidavit is found false or if it is found that any material fact has been concealed, then the petitioner be removed from the police force without imposing any condition and whatever the legal punishment would be provided to him that will be accepted by him. The petitioner has further averred in his affidavit at para-14 that in case, if the facts mentioned in the affidavit are found to be false then he will not claim anything for his selection and in future also if these facts are found to be false, the petitioner should be terminated form the service from the police force and whatever the punishment would be provided that shall be accepted by the petitioner. Therefore, this fact was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner that a case was pending against him and in case, if he conceals this fact, he will be liable for legal consequences and he would be also terminated from the service even after his training is completed. Filing of the wrong affidavit is a penal offence and it appears to me that the petitioner has deliberately concealed the material facts for which his representation has been rightly rejected by the respondents. I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the action of the respondents. The petition thus lacks merit in it and there is no scope of issuing any direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner for participation in the training for the post of constable for which he stood selected. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 22.06.2005 ASWAL