IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4642 of 2010 1. Navin Kumar S/O Sri Kapildeo Prasad R/O Vill.- Rajauli Tola Rampur, P.O.+P.S.- Rajauli, Distt.- Nawada Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission Through Its Secretary, Patna-14 3. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission Through Its Chairman, Patna-14 4. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Patna 5. The Secretary (Home Police), Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 6. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police, (Personnel And Administration) Bihar, Patna 7. The Superintendent Of Police, Nawada with CWJC No.5911 of 2010 1. Manju Kumari D/O Sri Jagdish Singh R/O Vill Kothi Bigha, P.O.Amjhor, P.S.& Distt-Rohtas Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director General Of Police Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The I.G. Administration Bihar, Patna 4. The Deputy Inspector General (Personnel) At Administration Null Bihar, Patna 5. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police Sahabad Range, Dehri On Sone, Rohtas 6. The Superintendent Of Police Rohtas , Dehri On Sone, Rohtas 7. Inspector Dehri Muffassil (Amjhor Circle) Rohtas 8. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission Through Its Secretary Patna 9. Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission Patna ----------- For the Petitioners:- Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ramanuj Tiwary, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondents:- Mr. Sumant Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Commission :- Mr. S.S.Sundaram, Adv. ----------- 4. 12.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State in both the writ applications. The facts of the case bear a marked similarity. The questions of law involved are common. The applications are therefore being 2 disposed by this common order. The two petitioners were applicants for the post of Sub Inspector under Advertisement No. 704 of 2004. They were both successful in the selection process as finally notified on 30.5.2008. Litigations before this Court at the behest of certain unsuccessful candidates led to re-structuring and revising of results by fresh select list published on 1.2.2009. As a result several candidates who were earlier declared successful went out of the purview of selection and certain others whose names did not figure in the selection list dated 30.5.2008 came to be included. The petitioners have remained successful in both the results. In both the cases the petitioners were accused in criminal cases and in their police verification form submitted by them in July 2008 after the declaration of the result dated 30.5.2008 it was stated that they were not an accused in any criminal case contrary to the factual position. Before the revised list has been published on 1.2.2009 they have been acquitted on 11.2.2009 in the former case and 19.9.2008/15.10.2008 in their respective criminal cases. In C.W.J.C. No. 4642 of 2010 it was 3 submitted that an F.I.R. was first lodged by the father of the petitioner against others in a land dispute. The accused therein filed a compliant case against the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner is not a person habitually engaged in unlawful activities. After cancellation of the earlier result and before publication of the fresh result on 1.2.2009 the petitioner on 2.12.2008 had informed the authorities of the pendency of the complaint case against him. Likewise in C.W.J.C. No. 5911 of 2010 similar submission was that she is not a habitual offender and did not engage in any unlawful activities. As a member of the Zila Parishad she had participated in a social protest regarding irregularities in preparation of BPL list with due permission of the authorities by sitting on a hunger strike. The common thread of submission in both the cases was that if the result dated 30.5.2008 was cancelled, leading to fresh publication of results on 1.2.2009, the former cancellation has to be taken to its logical conclusion. The cancellation cannot be enforced for some purposes and the earlier result be kept alive for other purposes. Any Police verification submitted after 30.5.2008 and before the fresh 4 result on 1.2.2009 looses its efficacy. An opportunity to furnish fresh police verification should have been furnished after 1.2.2009, which has been denied. The respondents cannot jumble up the selection process to suit matters according to their own convenience. Reliance has been placed on an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 18007 of 2009 (Nagina Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), C.W.J.C. No. 3338 of 2009 ( Ranjeet Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) and C.W.J.C. No. 16574 of 2009 (Raj Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) as also on 2011(2) PLJR (SC) 197 (Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar). Learned counsel for the petitioner in the former application submits that there are other orders of this Court in controversies like the present following the reformist view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra). Counsel for the respondents submitted that there shall be a distinction between those seeking employment in the Police service and those seeking employment in other services. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13845 of 2009 (Raju Prasad Vs. The State of 5 Bihar & Ors.). Reliance has further been placed on the two orders of the Supreme Court noticed in that order. It is contended that in a recruitment to a uniformed and disciplined force, the matter has to be left to the discretion of the employer for deciding whether to recruit or not to recruit persons when their conduct during the selection process also may be a relevant consideration. In the case of Ranjeet Kumar (supra) the order of the Court only notices that final form was submitted by the Police and on a protest petition cognizance was taken which came to be quashed by this Court. The facts of the case with regard to the sequence of dates and events with regard to the date of filing of the Police verification form, the date on which final form was submitted or cognizance taken and quashed are not discernable from the order. The relevance of each order has to be considered on the facts of a case. No ratio has been considered or laid down therein. The Court finds it difficult to apply the same for consideration of the case of the petitioner. In the case of Raj Kumar Singh (supra) the petitioner was released on probation before the date that he filled up his police verification form. Considering the law laid down in A.I.R. 2008 (SC) 1083 (State of 6 Harnaya & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar) the Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was in a bona fide impression of mind that in view of his earlier release under the Probation of Offenders Act, he was not required to necessarily disclose it. In the case of Nagina Kumar (surpa) the compounding of the dispute was before the date of filling up the Police verification form and again in a bona fide belief it had not been disclosed. In the case of Sandeep Kumar (surpa) again the matter was of compounding prior to the date of filling up the Police verification form. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Paragraphs 12 and 15 of the judgment in support of his submission that the lapse, if it were to be so considered, was not so severe so as to visit them with such a severe punishment to be totally denied consideration for the job. A reformist view was advocated. If there be any other judgment of this Court applicable relying upon the case of Sandeep Kumar, the Court has had no occasion to apply its mind to the same as no such other judgment has been placed before this Court. In the present case the acquittals are 7 admittedly after filling up of the police verification form denying that they were accused in any criminal case. In view of the nature of the order to be passed, the Court does not consider it proper to make any observation and/or express any opinion on the merits of the matter lest it prejudice either side during the subsequent consideration as directed hereinafter. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are not habitual offenders engaged in unlawful activities. They made the disclosures with regard to the erroneous information furnished by them at the first available opportunity before they were visited with any adverse consequence for denial of the appointment for that reason. It is the contention of the respondents that given the nature of the appointment the matter has to be left to the employer for a final decision as suitability supervision and discipline over the employee is their jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid discussion the Court considers it prudent to dispose off the writ applications enabling the petitioners to represent before respondent no. 6 when it is expected he shall 8 take a considered and reasoned decision by independent application of mind. The impugned orders dated 1.12.2009 and 5.10.2009 shall be no impediment for such fresh consideration and decision. It is expected that such fresh decision shall be taken within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ applications stand disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)