IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.971 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 23.10.2009 State of Haryana & others. -----Appellants Vs. Jai Pal. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl.A.G., Haryana for the appellants. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, directing appointment being given to the respondent as Constable. 2. The respondent was a candidate for the post of Constable in pursuance of advertisement dated 5.10.2007 and was selected. On 4.11.2008, he was called for medical examination. On the same day, FIR was lodged against seven persons including the respondent, alleging offences under Sections 148/149, 323/427, 495/397/458 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act. No specific role was attributed to the respondent. After due investigation, the respondent was declared to be innocent by the investigating agency. Inspite of this, his appointment was withheld on the ground of pendency of criminal trial, relying on instructions dated 5.2.2009, Annexure R-1. The respondent preferred writ LPA No.971 of 2009 petition against the action of withholding of his appointment, which was contested on the basis of lodging of the FIR and pendency of criminal trial. It was submitted that there was possibility that the Court may not accept the finding of innocence of the respondent and summon him as additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Learned Single Judge rejected the stand of the appellants and held that there being no investigation or trial pending against the respondent, on mere chance or possibility of his being summoned to face trial, appointment could not be denied to him. However, it was observed that if the respondent was summoned, the appellants could take such action as may be permitted in law. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to show how appointment could be denied to the respondent when neither investigation nor trial is pending against the respondent. 6. Accordingly, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE October 23, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 2