CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6930 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 21 ,2011 Mandeep Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner applied for being appointed as a Constable in Railway Protection Force, in response to an advertisement for appointment of 919 posts of Constables. The last date for submission of the applications was 20.7.2007. The petitioner being fully eligible had submitted his application form. He received a call letter on 5.6.2007. The petitioner cleared the physical test on 1.3.2008.. He appeared in the written test on 11.11.2008 and qualified the same on 14.3.2009. The petitioner was called for interview on 13.5.2009, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6930 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: where he was required to produce the requisite documents in original. The petitioner was found suitable and so was successful in his selection. He appeared for medical examination on 18.5.2009, where he was found fit. Subsequently, during verification of antecedents of the petitioner, a report was received from Superintendent of Police, District Sri Ganga Nagar, that FIR No.19, dated 12.2.2003, under Sections 341, 332, 353 IPC was got registered against the petitioner at Police Station Sri Karanpur, District Ganga Nagar. The petitioner was found guilty of offence and was released on probation on 1.8.2005. Yet another FIR was registered against the petitioner on 8.3.2008 under Sections 341 and 323 IPC at Police Station Karanpur, District Sri Ganga Nagar, which ended in compromise and order of acquittal was passed on 8.4.2008. Upon this, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on 13.11.2009. The petitioner accordingly has filed this writ petition to impugn this action of the respondents. Counsel contends that the petitioner was of a young age and may have happened to get involved in such type of minor incidents. The counsel would also highlight the fact that the petitioner was released on probation earlier and this may have a reason for him not to disclose this fact while filing response to the questions addressed in the enrolment form. The petitioner primarily has been ousted not on the ground his conviction or his involvement in a criminal offence but action has been taken against him as he has not truthfully answered the questions contained in the enrolment form. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6930 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: There are some specific questions, which a candidate is required to answer in regard to his arrest, prosecution, detention, of being bound down or being fined by a Court of law or about his conviction by any Court of law. The answers as submitted by the petitioner in response to all such questions were found to be false. This position surfaced upon verification of antecedents of the petitioner. This factual position is not disputed by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has very compassionately pleaded the case of the petitioner to say that it will ruin the career of young person looking for bearing in life. I can have sympathy with the petitioner but in a Disciplined Force like Railway Protection Force, sympathies can not weigh to over look legal requirement or legal position. It is not his conviction that has been held against the petitioner but it is the action on his part to answers wrongly to the questions in enrolment form, which can be and is considered as a misconduct on his part or an attempt to mislead. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in this case on the ground of equity, the law being against the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. July 21, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE