HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P. No. 20891 of 2011 DATED: 26.07.2011 Between: 1. The State of A.P. 2. The State Level Police Recruitment Board 3. The Commissioner of Police .. Petitioners And 1. Vamsetty Umashankar 2. A.P.A.T., Hyderabad .. Respondents O R D E R:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The petitioners–State assert that the 1st respondent was provisionally selected to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (SCT PC) (AR)(Men), however on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case which ended in acquittal and also the fact that his antecedents and character are found not satisfactory, the 1st respondent – Government, vide Fax Message dated 14.05.2009, cancelled his provisional selection list. Assailing the cancellation of provisional selection, the 1st respondent filed O.A. No. 11702 of 2009, and the Tribunal, while allowing the O.A., set aside the order dated 14.05.2009 and directed the petitioners herein to issue fresh appointment order to the 1st respondent as SCT PC (AR) forthwith and send him for training in the ensuing batch. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that even though the 1st respondent was indulged in a brazen act of cheating in recruitment process of a uniformed service, the Tribunal, without taking into consideration his antecedents and character, ordered issuance of fresh appointment order to the 1st respondent. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking to quash the impugned order dated 02.02.2010. The main contention of the learned Government Pleader for Services – I appearing for the petitioners is that the antecedents and character of the 1st respondent are not satisfactory in view of the fact that he was indulged in a brazen act of cheating in recruitment process of a uniformed service, as such, the order of cancellation of the provisional selection of the 1st respondent issued by the 1st petitioner cannot be interfered with, and therefore prays to allow the writ petition. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services – I and perused the material placed on record. There is no dispute with regard the provisional selection of the 1st respondent to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (AR)(Men), however the cancellation of his selection by the 1st petitioner is unsustainable in law inasmuch as the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagarm, in his judgment dated 19.01.2009 delivered in C.C. No. 185 of 2006, found the 1st respondent not guilty of the offences with which he was charged, only after examining the entire evidence both oral and documentary. This finding amply proves that the antecedents and character of the 1st respondent are satisfactory. Therefore, once the 1st respondent is acquitted of the offences with which he was charged despite the seriousness of their nature, it cannot be said that he is not suitable for appointment to any post. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity, legal or otherwise in the impugned order, and further, the petitioners – State are directed to take steps to send the 1st respondent for training whenever it is conducted. With the above modification of the impugned order, dated 02.02.2010, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 26.07.2011 _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J bcj