C.W.P. No.13895 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.13895 of 2007 Date of Decision: August 12, 2008 Rajeev Kumar .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Harbhagwan Walia, Senior Advocate with Mr.Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. ... M.M.KUMAR, J. The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the action of the respondents for not issuing appointment letter to him for the post of Constable, Karnal Range (Haryana). On 2.5.2006, an advertisement inviting the applications for over 3000 posts was issued. The petitioner applied being fully eligible applied under S.C. (A) category. He was given registration No.858 A in SC(A) category. According to the result declared on 21.4.2007, he was at merit list No.31. On the ground that the petitioner was earlier prosecuted in case FIR No.128 dated 2.8.2002, registered under C.W.P. No.13895 of 2007 -2- Sections 392/39 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, the respondents have refused to issue him appointment letter. The prosecution had resulted in his acquittal vide order dated 8.3.2004 (Annexure R1). The plea taken is that the petitioner has failed to dis-lodge the factum of prosecution in Column No.12 of the application form. It is appropriate to notice column No.12 of the application form, which is as under: 'Whether involved in any criminal case? If so indicate case FIR No....... dated.......indicate offences, Police Station, District & State'. The petitioner did not state anything against the aforementioned column. Another objection raised is that in character verification form (Annexure R2), there is column which required him to disclose his arrest, prosecution, detention, fine by court of law or conviction. To all the aforementioned columns, he has replied 'No'. Mr.Walia, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the policy of the State is evident from the instructions dated 2.7.2007 (Annexure R4). According to para 2(a) of the instructions, candidates who have been involved in criminal case and have been acquitted by the time of declaration of selection list may be considered for appointment as Constable even if he had not disclosed the fact of facing trial or acquittal in column No.12 of application form. Although, the aforementioned policy of the State has been issued in July 2007, the petitioner stood acquitted of criminal charge on 8.3.2004 (Annexure P1). The acquittal of the petitioner is not on technical ground and it is on merit because the petitioner has not been identified by the complainant and even no evidence has been found against him. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat has opined that the C.W.P. No.13895 of 2007 -3- prosecution has miserably failed to prove anything on record and thereby has ordered the acquittal of the petitioner. Mr.Rathee, learned State counsel has, however, argued that the concealment of fact from column No.12 in the application form and misleading of suppression of fact from column No.13 in character verification form would be sufficient to disentitle the petitioner from appointment to the post of Constable. According to the learned State counsel, the concealment of conviction, arrest, detention are the clinching factors to deny appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record with their able assistance, we are of the considered opinion that this petition merits acceptance. It has come on record that on 2.5.2006 when the advertisement was issued, the record of the petitioner was clean as he was acquitted of the criminal charge under Section 392/39 of the Indian Penal Code on 8.3.2004. The concealment by the petitioner was immaterial and inconsequential because he already stood acquitted. There could be no motive attached to the petitioner because he would not gain in any respect by such concealment. The result of disclosure of information with regard to his arrest would be inconsequential because on that basis appointment to the petitioner could not be withheld nor it could have effected his eligibility. The State of Haryana has issued the policy dated 2.7.2007 (Annexure R4) extending the benefit even in case of concealment where on the date of filing the application for appointment as Constable, the trial is pending or against conviction the appeal is pending. The aforementioned policy would not stricto senso apply to this case because these instructions were issued on 2.7.2007 whereas the last of application in pursuance to advertisement in C.W.P. No.13895 of 2007 -4- the present case was in 2006. In any case, we are not impressed with the aforementioned instructions. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition succeeds. The respondents are directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Constable with effect from the date the persons lower in merit have been issued appointment. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits except payment of arrears of salary which shall be subject to any other objection. ( M. M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) August 12, 2008 JUDGE SRM