Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sudhakar Pandey and the learned Standing Counsel. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and therefore the matter is being disposed of finally at this stage. The petitioner having been selected as a constable for being appointed in the Uttar Pradesh Police Services was subjected to police verification. His verification report was received to the effect that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case prior to his selection and therefore such involvement does not entitle him to seek employment in the police services. Accordingly, his candidature was cancelled. The petitioner made a representation which was not being considered as a result whereof he filed writ petition No. 69759 of 2006 which was disposed of on 20th December, 2006 to examine the claim of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order. 2. In compliance of the aforesaid direction the impugned order dated 5th January, 2007 was passed on the ground that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case and therefore such involvement does not entitle him for employment in the police services. After passing of the said order, the petitioner was honorably acquitted by the criminal court in Case Crime No. 616 of 2006 and the decision was rendered by the Trial Court on 29th January, 2007. It is, therefore, clear that the said judgment was not before the Senior Superintendent of Police when he passed the order dated 5th January, 2007. The petitioner has approached this Court questioning the correctness of the impugned order and has brought on record the order of acquittal through a supplementary affidavit. 3. This Court after examining the said acquittal order dated 29th January, 2007 passed an interim order on 28.2.2007 staying the operation of the order dated 5th January, 2007 till the next date of listing. The matter was contested and after the State had filed appearance, the writ petition was admitted on 25th May, 2007 by the following order: "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's selection was cancelled on the ground of registration of Case Crime No. 616 of 2005. He submits that petitioner has disclosed the said criminal case in the affidavit filed in the recruitment. Copy of the said affidavit has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit there is mention of criminal case. He submits that petitioner has disclosed the said criminal case in the affidavit filed in the recruitment. Copy of the said affidavit has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit there is mention of criminal case. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed an application and affidavit bringing on record the acquittal order dated 29.1.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that other constables have been sent for training but by the impugned order petitioner's selection has been cancelled. The Senior Superintendent of Police in the impugned order has taken a view that since criminal case is pending, hence petitioner is not fit to be appointed as constable. The affidavit filed by the petitioner in the recruitment discloses the fact of registration of Case Crime No. 616 of 2005 against the petitioner. The Senior Superintendent of Police has cancelled the selection on the ground that criminal case against the petitioner being registered he is not a fit person to be appointed. The copy of the acquittal order in the above criminal case has been brought on the record. In view of the facts of the present case and submissions of the petitioner, as noted above, the petitioner has made out a case for permitting him to be sent for training. Admit. In view of the above, the order dated 5th January, 2007 is stayed to the effect that petitioner shall be sent for training, which shall be subject to result of the final order. No appointment letter shall be issued to the petitioner after training without leave of the Court." 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and the same position has been taken namely that the petitioner being involved in a criminal case was not entitled for being selected and appointed. It is to be noted that in view of the interim orders passed by this Court the petitioner was sent on training which fact is not disputed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the acquittal of the petitioner entitles him for employment. It is submitted that the impact of the acquittal order is that the petitioner was never involved in any criminal case and even otherwise the petitioner had filed an affidavit before the authorities disclosing his involvement. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the acquittal of the petitioner entitles him for employment. It is submitted that the impact of the acquittal order is that the petitioner was never involved in any criminal case and even otherwise the petitioner had filed an affidavit before the authorities disclosing his involvement. He submits that this honest disclosure was in accordance with rules and keeping in view the subsequent acquittal the claim of the petitioner deserves to be reconsidered in the light of the same. 6. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that the petitioner had an antecedent of being involved in a criminal case and therefore it cannot be said that the impugned order is erroneous. He further submits that the order was passed on the basis of the material that was available and in the absence of the order of acquittal it cannot be said that the order suffers from any infirmity. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel to the effect that the order of acquittal was not in existence when the impugned order was passed appears to be correct. However, in view of the subsequent development which indicates an advantage in favour of the petitioner, in my opinion, requires the matter to be reconsidered in the light of the order of acquittal. The petitioner after having been acquitted will be presumed to have never been involved in any criminal case. A perusal of the judgment indicates that it was a clean acquittal. The stain having been erased on a judicial verdict by the competent court washes out the effect of involvement. This has to be viewed from another angle. A person if falsely implicated runs the risk of losing the opportunity to get a job and it is here that injustice should not be allowed to dislodge an otherwise valid claim. 7. Accordingly, the Senior Superintendent of Police is required to reconsider the candidature of the applicant and as such for the said purpose the order impugned dated 5th January, 2007 is quashed. The Senior Superintendent of Police will pass a fresh order keeping in view the observations made hereinabove within eight weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him. The writ petition is allowed.