CWP No. 15965 of 2005(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15965 of 2005(O&M) Decided on : 20-01-2011 Manjit Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. C.L.Katyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J CM No. 17613 of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. CM No. 17614 of2010 Allowed as prayed for. Annexures A-1 to A-5 are taken on record. CWP No. 15965 of 2005(O&M) The petitioner prays for appointment in pursuance to his selection as a Constable. The appointment was declined to him on account of the fact that he was facing criminal proceedings. The petitioner was selected in January, 2004 and was acquitted in the criminal case against him on 10.9.2004. The writ petition was filed in the year 2005 after the legal notice that he had served was decided and his prayer for consideration for appointment had been declined by virtue of Annexure P-7. CWP No. 15965 of 2005(O&M) 2 The respondents have justified the denial of appointment to the petitioner by saying that the petitioner was involved in the criminal case and further appointment at this stage to the petitioner is unwarranted, moreso, when it will flow after more than 6 years of the selection. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments passed in the following cases, which he has placed on record by virtue of misc. application:- i) CWP No. 4452 of 2008 titled as Amit Kumar versu State of Haryana and others decided on 15.5.2008 ii)CWP No. 6051 of 2009 titled as Jai Pal versus State of Haryana and others decided on 31.7.2009 iii)CWP No. 15109 of 2008 titled as Tarun Kumar versus State of Haryana and others decided on 2.9.2009 iv)CWP No. 8113 of 2009 titled as Surender Singh versus State of Haryana and others decided on 29.4.2010 v) CWP No. 118 of 2010 titled as Dharmander Versus State of Haryana and others decided on 26.8.2010. Upon notice of the application being given to the respondents they have not been able to distinguish the case of the petitioner with the ones in whose cases the said judgments were delivered. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order as also the judgments which have been placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case, and after perusal of the same, I am of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decisions rendered by this Court. Even prior to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, CWP No. 15965 of 2005(O&M) 3 this Court in CWP No. 2124 of 2009 had observed as follows:- “Is this action fair? What is then a difference between conviction and acquittal if the effect is to be the same. As per instructions dated 3.2.2009 (Annexure R-1), the petitioner would appear eligible for appointment but still is struggling to get one. These instructions have been specifically issued for recruitment of 1940 male constables as can be seen from the subject heading of the instructions. As per the said instructions, if a candidate was acquitted before the date of appearance of the advertisement i.e. 23.8.2007, he is to be given an appointment if he fulfills all other mandatory requirements. Since the petitioner in this case was acquitted prior to issuance of this advertisement, he is eligible for appointment as per the instructions, dated 3.2.2009, Annexure R-1. The other part of the instructions in fact may not be attracted to the case of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner has been denied appointment by invoking instructions issued by the D.G.P., dated 13.11.2007, which provides that such candidates who are acquitted on technical grounds in offences involving moral turpitude are not entitled for allotment of any constabulary number. These instructions have not been placed on record but have been perused by the Court. The relevant part thereof reads as under:- “This matter has been further examined and clarification conveyed vide this office letter referred to above CWP No. 15965 of 2005(O&M) 4 is modified as under:- a) Candidates against whom cases are pending should be considered for allotment of Constabulary number except those who are facing investigation/trial or have been convicted in offences, involving moral turpitude. b) The candidates acquitted on technical grounds in offences involving moral turpitude, shall also not be considered for allotment of constabulary number.” It is part (b) above of the instructions, which is being invoked against the petitioner. The instructions dated 13.11.2007 are in continuation of another communication/instructions dated 2.7.2007, relevant portion of which is as under:- “(a) Candidates who were involved in criminal cases and stand acquitted at the time of declaration of selection list may be considered for appointment as constable even if they had not disclosed the fact of their facing trial or acquittal in column No.12 of the application form. But those candidates who have faced charges of moral turpitude during their trial but got acquitted merely on technical grounds or on account of giving of benefit of doubt may not be considered for appointment as constable. In this regard, it is stated that all cases of acquittal in charges of moral turpitude should be minutely examined after careful appraisal of the judgments and such candidates who have been acquitted honourably may, however be considered for appointments as constable. b) All those candidates who are facing trial for any criminal CWP No. 15965 of 2005(O&M) 5 offence will not be considered for appointment as constable. c) Candidates who have been convicted for any criminal offence shall not be given appointment.” These instructions seem to have been issued in regard to particular selection and apparently are not for general application. These are apparently for the purpose of guidance and can not be taken to be of binding nature. As per these instructions, Constabulary number can be denied to those who are facing investigation, trial or have been convicted for offences involving moral turpitude. Those who are acquitted on technical ground of the offence involving moral turpitude are also not to be considered for allotting the constabulary number. The clarificatory communication dated 2.7.2007, part of which is reproduced above would show that the cases of acquittal and charges of moral turpitude are to be minutely examined and after careful appraisal of the judgment, those who are acquitted honourably are to be considered for appointment as Constables. The provision to honourable acquittal of a charge perhaps is not available. Reading of these communications and the stand taken by the respondents would clearly show that the petitioner is being denied appointment on the ground that he is acquitted of an offence involving moral turpitude by giving benefit of doubt and hence, is not to be so appointed as Constable.” Having regard to the aforesaid and the decisive pronouncements of this Court, the instant writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of CWP No. 15965 of 2005(O&M) 6 an appointment in view of the observations made above. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits though his pay be fixed notionally and he be granted the benefit of seniority etc. January 20 , 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge