CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.118 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.118 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 26 , 2010 Dharmander .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr.R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition seeking quashing of the action of the respondents, whereby the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Constable (Computer Operator) after due selection is being denied. The petitioner would also seek further direction for considering his claim for appointment from the date the persons lower in merit to him were appointed and also for grant of all the other consequential benefits. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.118 of 2010 -2- 485 posts of Computer Operator were advertised by the Police Department on 25.9.2007. The petitioner being eligible had applied for the same and was selected at merit no.30 from amongst 219 candidates in the General Category. In December, 2008, the candidates lower in merit were appointed. The claim of the petitioner was ignored on the ground that he is involved in a case registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 309, 506 of IPC. The position that would emerge from the averments made in the petition is that the Police has carried out investigation in the said FIR and thereafter, has presented a challan in the Court in November, 2009. The name of the petitioner has been shown in column No.2, meaning thereby that the petitioner has been found innocent after investigation. Since the petitioner was innocent, he moved a representation before the respondents for his appointment on that ground. When no action was being taken, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. In the reply filed, the fact that the petitioner has been found innocent after investigation and has been shown in Column No.2, is not disputed. However, it is averred that there are chances of the petitioner being summoned under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. during the trial. It is so pleaded that a candidate facing investigation/trial or convicted in an offence involving moral turpitude cannot be allotted constabular number and so the prayer made in the writ petition is opposed. Reference is made to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.118 of 2010 -3- instructions dated 13.11.2007 in this regard and the same has been placed on record as Annexure R-2. A perusal of the instructions (Annexure R-2) would show that the 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. The candidates acquitted on technical grounds in offences involving moral turpitude shall also not be considered for allotment of constabulary number. It is further provided that the candidates, who on appeal have been declared medically fit by the PGIMS Rohtak, may also be considered for allotment of constabulary number. Relying upon these instructions, the State counsel pleads that case for appointment of the petitioner is not made out. When the case came up for hearing before this Court on July 23, 2010, it was noticed that the stand taken in the reply was unjust. It was considered that the plea that there are chances of summoning the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is too far fetched to deny appointment to the petitioner. Accordingly, the State counsel was required to have instructions if the petitioner would be considered for appointment. The counsel submits that the respondents would stick to their stand. This attitude adopted by the respondents cannot be appreciated. Even as per the instructions, the appointment can be denied to those candidates, who are facing investigation/trial or have been convicted in offences involving moral CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.118 of 2010 -4- turpitude. The petitioner is not such a constable, who is facing any investigation/trial. The investigations in case of the petitioner are complete. After investigation, the petitioner has been found innocent. He has been shown in column no.2. The effect of this is that he is not facing trial. A person, shown in column no.2 cannot be treated a person accused before any court of law. The case of the petitioner, thus, would not be covered by any of the clauses contained in Policy instructions (Annexure R-2). The stand of the respondents, therefore, cannot be termed as fair and just. Rather it is unreasonable. The right of the appointment after due selection can be considered a valuable legal right, which can be taken away only on some legally permissible grounds. There is no justification on the part of the respondents to deny appointment to the petitioner. The counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to a judgment passed by this Court in C.W.P. No.6051 of 2009, titled as 'Jai Pal Vs. State of Haryana and others', annexed as Annexure P-3. Under similar circumstances, it was ordered by the Court that it is unfair to deny appointment to a person for a post for which he has been selected merely because there are chances or possibility of filing an application for his summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Respondents would not be justified in denying the claim made in the petition. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.118 of 2010 -5- allowed. It is so ordered. Directions, hereby, are issued to the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to represent for grant of all the financial benefits from the date these would be due to him, in accordance with law. If the petitioner is further aggrieved against any order passed by the respondents, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail his remedy in accordance with law. The petitioner is held entitled to the cost, which is assessed as Rs.25,000/-. August 26 , 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE