Civil Writ Petition No. 218 of 2006 (O&M) 1 ***** Joginder Singh Versus State of Haryana and others Present: Mr. S.N. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. ***** The petitioner applied for being appointed as Constable in response to advertisement issued in June, 1998. The petitioner participated in physical measurement and physical efficiency test. Having been found fit, he was called for interview. It is averred that the petitioner was selected for the post of constable and he was sent for medical examination also. At that time, some application was filed against the petitioner alleging that the matriculation certificate produced by him was forged. On the basis of which, complaint FIR No. 1032 dated 9.11.1998 was registered against him under Sections 419, 420 IPC at police station Karnal. The petitioner was never given an appointment. The petitioner, however, faced a criminal prosecution and was finally acquitted on 21.10.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the Director General of Police for being given appointment. His prayer was rejected on 15.1.2005 on the ground that the petitioner had concealed facts about his arrest in the character and antecedent verification. The petitioner accordingly filed this writ petition in January, 2006, seeking direction to the respondents to appoint him. Counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner as stated in Annexure P-5 as at the time of application, the FIR against the petitioner had Civil Writ Petition No. 218 of 2006 (O&M) 2 not been registered. Counsel thereafter contends that the petitioner has been acquitted on merit and as such in terms of the policy instructions, Annexure P-6, now placed on record through replication his case for appointment would be covered by these instructions and he would deserve an appointment. It is to be noticed that the petitioner faced the selection in the year 1998. He could earn his acquittal only in the year 2004. Thereafter another 5 years have passed. From the date of appointment and till date there is a gap of nearly 11 years. The petitioner is alleged to have produced a matriculation certificate which was statedly forged. He has been acquitted of a criminal charge in this regard by giving him benefit of doubt. It is disclosed in the reply that the petitioner and his co-accused were acquitted by giving benefit of doubt and for non appearance of the material witnesses from the Board of School Education, Bhiwani as well as for non appearance of Investigating Officer in the trial Court. It is further stated that there is no finding given by the criminal Court that the certificate produced by the petitioner was genuine and cannot be termed as forged one. Matriculation is the qualification for the appointment of the petitioner. Since there is doubt in regard to the validity of basic qualification certificate for which the petitioner has faced prosecution, his very eligibility is in doubt. The offences alleged against the petitioner are of cheating and hence would be of moral turpitude. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner cannot be covered by the policy instructions, Annexure P-6. To be fair to the counsel for the petitioner he has drawn my attention to judgment in the case of Secy. Department of Home Civil Writ Petition No. 218 of 2006 (O&M) 3 Secy. A.P. And others versus B. Chinnam Naidu 2005 (2) SLR 340. This was a case where the person was given appointment and allowed to join duties. He was arrested in certain cases for which he was neither charged nor convicted for any offence. In this background, it was held that he was not held guilty of suppression of any fact and having been selected cannot be denied appointment. In this case, there could not have been any allegation of mis- statement as he was not even charged. The ratio of this case, accordingly, would not apply to the facts of the present case. Reference is also made to Dr. Ashok Kumar versus The State of Punjab and others 1991 (1) Recent Services Judgments 116. This is a case of cancellation of appointment on the ground that the petitioner had supplied wrong information and concealed facts in the application. In the present case even appointment was not given. After 11 years, it is not fair to appoint the petitioner when his very eligibility is under cloud. The petitioner was accused of committing an offence of moral turpitude, for which he was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt and on account of non appearance of material witnesses. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. July 27, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE