IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2933 of 2009 OM PRAKASH SINGH Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Upendra Prasad – II Mr. Rana Baljit Singh, Advocates For the respondents: Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, Advocate --- 2 20-3-2009 The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order dated 27.11.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No.442 of 2000. It is the case of the petitioner that he applied for appointment as Branch Post Master in his village – Sahraon, District Khagaria. At the time when his application was under consideration, a criminal case for the offence punishable under Sections 302,307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act for committing murder of one Kuldeep Roy alias Kulo Roy was instituted. Since at the time of consideration of the application a criminal case was pending against the petitioner, his candidature was not considered and respondent no.3 Bijay Kant Roy was appointed against the vacant post. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that - 2 - since after selection the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case and he fulfils all criteria and conditions for appointment because he got more marks than the petitioner in the matriculation examination, his application should be re- considered cancelling the appointment of respondent no.3. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original application on the ground that after selection even if the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, his application cannot be re- considered because at the time of consideration of his application a criminal case was pending against him. In this connection, the Tribunal relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.13231 of 1996 disposed of on 4th October, 1996. The relevant part of the decision of the Apex Court has been quoted in para – 6 of the order which is reproduced herein below: “This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi made on September 6, 1995 in O.A. No.1756/91. The admitted position is that the respondent appeared for recruitment as a Constable in Delhi Police Service in the year 1989-90 with Roll No.65790. Though he was found physically fit through endurance test, written test and interview and was selected provisionally, his selection was subject to verification of character and antecedents by the local police. On verification, it was found that his - 3 - antecedents were such a that his appointment to the post of Constable was not found desirable. Accordingly, his name was rejected. Aggrieved by proceedings date December 18, 1990 culminating in cancellation of his provisional selection, he filed OA in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned order allowed the application on the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted of the offence punishable under section 304 IPC under Section 324 read with 34 IPC and under Section 324 IPC, he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post under the State. The question is: whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was physically found fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for re-consideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offence, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequence. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedent of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focused this aspect and found him not desirable to appoint him to the service.” The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in CWJC - 4 - No.3059 of 2000( Sunil Kumar Singh vs. The Union of India & Ors.) reported in 2008(1) PLJR 198. In that case at the time of appointment no criminal case was pending against the petitioner and a criminal case was instituted subsequent to his appointment and subsequently, the said case ended in acquittal. The decision relied upon by the petitioner has no relevance as the factual aspect of the matter of the present case is entirely different than the case relied on by the petitioner. In the present case at the time of consideration of the application for appointment, a criminal case was pending against the petitioner whereas in that case a criminal case was instituted subsequent to the appointment. Having considered the aforesaid facts, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. Neyaz/- ( J.B. Koshy, CJ.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)