Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 557 (JK)

Bilal Ahmad Parra v. State & Ors.

2011-10-22

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2011
1) To seek response from the eligible desirous candidates for selection and appointment of Constables in IRP 13 Bn. advertisement notice came to be issued. It is averred that petitioner being eligible applied for the same, appeared in the interview, successfully made the grade and consequently selected under RBA category and was figuring in the select list at serial No. 8. Despite his selection he was not allowed to join his duties as such for the reason that his name was reflected in a criminal case. 2) The inaction of the respondents constrained the petitioner to file writ petition before this court. 3) Respondents filed their reply and it is contended that respondents after completing the requisite formalities received adverse report from IGP, CID J&K, Srinagar which suggests the involvement of the petitioner in case FIR No. 70/2003 Police Station Tral. This report of the CID is said to be the handicap. 4) The petitioner in response to the reply filed supplementary affidavit along with the copy of the judgment passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Tral dated 19th of May, 2010 whereby the petitioner came to be honourably acquitted. 5) Admittedly it appears that petitioner was not allowed to join his duties only for the reason that he was involved in the commission of crime, of which he now stands honourably acquitted. 6) Now the moot question is whether the direction can be issued to respondents to allow him to join. Admittedly his selection and appointment has not been cancelled so far but simply he was not allowed to join his duties as stated hereinbefore. The Apex Court in case titled Babu Lal versus State of Haryana & Ors reported as 1991 AIR 1310, 1991 SCC (2) 335 and High court of Delhi in case titled Sandeep Kumar versus Commissioner of Police & Ors have held that pendency of criminal case is not a ground to deprive a candidate from his selection and appointment. 7) Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the judgments supra; the fact that post is still vacant and the verity of petitioner having been honourably acquitted, I deem it proper to allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for permitting him to join. 7) Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the judgments supra; the fact that post is still vacant and the verity of petitioner having been honourably acquitted, I deem it proper to allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for permitting him to join. 8) The respondents, as such, are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and make a decision within one month from the date copy of the judgment is served upon them. 9) The writ petition is accordingly disposed of along with all CMPs.