IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21061 of 2008 Between: P.Ramulu, S/o. Mogulaiah P.S Jogipet(M) Andole Medak District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Chairman State Level Police Recruitment Board A.P Hyderabad 2 State of A.P rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govet of Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Calling for the records relating to the order of the records relating to the order of the Honbl'e A.P Administrative Tribunal Dt 5-12-2007 in O.A No.1743 of 2007 and quash the same and further declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for selection and appointment as Sipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (Civil) as illegal bad and arbitrary and further direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as police Constable(Civil) with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : ORDER :(Per GM, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari challenging the order dated 05.12.2007 passed in O.A.No.1743 of 2007 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The petitioner is working as Home Guard with effect from 01.01.2004. He states that in pursuance of the notification issued by the first respondent in the year 2006, he applied for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable and was provisionally selected. In his application and attestation forms, he did not furnish the information about his involvement in a criminal case being C.C.No.237 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at Kogipet, dated 25.07.2001 and subsequently, he furnished a copy of the said judgment to the authorities concerned. Though he had no intention to suppress the said particular fact, the respondents have not considered his case for appointment to the said post, which is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, he filed O.A.No.1743 of 2007 seeking to consider his case for selection and appointment as Stipendiary Cadet Training P.C.(Civil), but the same was dismissed on 05.12.2007, aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services I. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that though the petitioner submitted a copy of the judgment of acquittal in a criminal case to the authorities concerned without suppressing any fact, the Tribunal ought to have considered and issued directions to the authorities concerned. He placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.199 dated 18.08.2004, under which, the Government has exercised its power and considered the case of one P.Narasimha Raju, who was acquitted in a criminal case, for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police on his making representation to the authorities concerned and submitted that similar opportunity may be given to the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-I contended that as per Rule 3(g)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Rules, 1999 issued in G.O.Ms.No.315, Home (Pol.C) Department, dated 13.10.1999, suppression of material facts either in the application form or attestation form is a disqualification. He has drawn the attention of this Court by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in DELHI ADMINISTRATION THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY v. SUSHIL KUMAR[1]. A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.199, dated 18.08.2004, shows that on submission of representation by one P.Narasimha Raju, who was provisionally selected for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil), though he suppressed the factum of his acquittal in a criminal case in the attestation form, the Government has considered his case and permitted him to undergo training Programme. In the instant case, initially, the petitioner has not furnished the information regarding his involvement in a criminal case, but later, he has furnished the said information by producing a copy of the judgment. Having regard to the fact that the Government has considered the similar case of the petitioner in the above mentioned G.O., we are of the view that similar opportunity may be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the respondents concerned to consider his case, upon which, they shall dispose of the same in accordance with the Rules in vogue. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J __________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date:08.12.2008 sj [1] (1996) 11 Supreme Court Cases 605