IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.332 of 2009 Date of decision: January 28, 2009 Ashok Kumar ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. M.K. Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral) The petitioner competed for selection as a Constable in Haryana Police Department and was selected in July 2004. However, on police verification it was found that he had been convicted in a criminal case FIR No.127 dated 10.09.1994 under Sections 323/325/334 IPC, Police Station Bound Kalan (Bhiwani). Thus, on the grounds of having been convicted and having not disclosed this essential information, the petitioner was denied appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he was released on probation for one year and thus it is clear that he was not convicted of a serious offence. He has also relied upon the Instructions (Annexure P-5) on the subject of Rehabilitation of ex-convicts to urge that it is the policy of the government to rehabilitate such persons who are convicts for an offence which does not involve moral turpitude and are released on probation. He has also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Parveen Kumar versus State of Haryana & others bearing No.223 of 2008 and decided on 24.07.2008, where a Division Bench had permitted a person who had not disclosed the fact of being involved in a criminal case to join. In my opinion, the petitioner cannot get the benefit either of the Instructions or of the judgment of this Court. The Instructions applied to those persons who may be convicted but who have disclosed that fact in their applications. In the present case, the petitioner did not disclose this fact which came to light at the time of police verification. As regards the judgment, the petitioner would not be allowed to get the benefit of judgment also since that judgment was passed with regard to a person who had been acquitted in the criminal case. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. January 28, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE