JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel for the State respondent and perused the record. 2. This Special Appeal is directed against the order dated 16.5.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 23262 of 2007 (Rashid Khan v. State of U.P.). 3. The brief facts of this case are : That the appellant is a Recruit Constable and is under training at Recruit Training Centre (R.T.C.), Reserve Police Lines, Kanpur Nagar. The appellant was duly selected by the Selection Committee from District Mainpuri and recruited on 17.11.2006 and was appointed as a Constable in Police Department. He joined his duty at Reserve Police Lines, Mainpuri on 17.11.2006 and after completing J.T.C. Course, appellant was sent on 11.2.2007 for R.T.C. Course at Recruit Training Centre, Reserve Police Lines, Kanpur Nagar. The appellant is an intermediate and is aged about twenty years; That the appellant/petitioner’s selection has been cancelled without following the proper procedure which has been prescribed under the law. In the alleged cancellation order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri, it is stated that the appellant/petitioner has concealed the material fact and pendency of the criminal cases and as such on the ground of concealment of facts, his selection was cancelled; That the impugned cancellation order has been issued without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing and without calling any explanation etc. from the petitioner; 4. The appellant also placed certain relevant facts in his petition : That the appellant/petitioner is a resident of Village Nagla Burjug Police Station Gosaiganj, District Kannauj and due to village party bandi and enmity, the petitioner/appellant has been falsely implicated in seven criminal cases. It is further stated that all the seven cases have been registered behind the back of the appellant/petitioner; That in case crime No. 195-A/02, the appellant was acquitted by the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj on 14.9.2006; That in case crime No. 374-A of 2000, the petitioner was acquitted by the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj on 11.8.2003; That in case crime No. 244 of 2004, the appellant/petitioner was acquitted by order of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate on 1.4.2005. That in case crime No. 300-A/04 and 301/04, after investigation, it was found that the name of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned in the aforesaid case and in the aforesaid case, the petitioner was not charge-sheeted. That in case crime No. 300-A/04 and 301/04, after investigation, it was found that the name of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned in the aforesaid case and in the aforesaid case, the petitioner was not charge-sheeted. In the said case crime number, the petitioner was never arrested by the police nor he was bailed out; That in case crime No. 391 of 2004 under Section 3/5 Goonda Act, which was registered against the petitioner at P.S. Gosaiganj, it is stated that in the said case, the petitioner was never arrested and he was not enlarged on bail. Even the petitioner was not summoned in that case. That in case crime No. 611 of 2006, by the order of S.D.M., Chibramau, the proceedings in the said case crime number has been dropped by their order dated 6.1.2007. That it is further submitted that the petitioner/appellant filed affidavit in third week of November, 2006 in which it was stated that no criminal case is pending against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the column under which the information was sought was vague and under some misunderstanding, the petitioner failed to disclose the above said facts; 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Superintendent of Police, the petitioner/appellant filed Writ Petition of Rashid Khan v. State of U.P., 2007(5) ADJ 43 (NOC) which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Against the order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 6. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgement and order dated 18.1.2012 passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. 1515 of 2007 (Sanjesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and others) and submitted that the case of the appellant is fully covered by the above case. He further submitted that the cases in which the appellant was involved have already been resulted into the acquittal much prior to the filing of the affidavit by the appellant and in some of the cases, the appellant was not charge-sheeted and final report was submitted. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that even at the time of lodging of some of the cases, the appellant was minor. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant has concealed the material facts and involvement in as many as seven cases and as such his candidature is rightly cancelled. 8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that even at the time of lodging of some of the cases, the appellant was minor. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant has concealed the material facts and involvement in as many as seven cases and as such his candidature is rightly cancelled. 8. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that criminal case No. 195A of 2002 under Sections 324, 323, 504 and 506 IPC has been decided by the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj dated 14.9.2006 and the appellant was acquitted. In Case No. 374A of 2000 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 IPC, Final Report submitted by the Police, has been accepted by the Court on 11.8.2003. In case No. 244 of 2004 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC, the appellant was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate on 1.4.2005. In case no. 300A of 2004 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 324, 307, 506 IPC, it was found by the Investigating Officer that the appellant was falsely implicated and he was not charge-sheeted. In case crime No. 301 of 2004 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 506 IPC, it was found by the Investiging Officer that the appellant was not involved in the case and he was not charge-sheeted. In case crime No. 391 of 2004 under Section 3/5 Goonda Act, no case is pending in the Court. In case crime No. 611 of 2006 under Section 309 Cr.P.C., proceedings has been dropped by the S.D.M., Chibramau, Kannaunj. No appeal has been preferred by the State against those cases resulting into the acquittal and no protest petition has been filed against the acceptance of the final report or non charge-sheet of the appellant. 9. The cases in which the appellant was acquitted are of the nature of minor offences. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has concealed any information and his character and antecedents were not such that he could not be given appointment in a disciplinary force. 9. The cases in which the appellant was acquitted are of the nature of minor offences. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has concealed any information and his character and antecedents were not such that he could not be given appointment in a disciplinary force. Therefore, having regard to the fact that at the time of lodging of the First Information Report of some of the cases, the appellant was minor and no knowledge could be imputed to him of those cases and therefore, following the ratio of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7016 of 2011 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12091 of 2010, Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(10) ADJ 20 (SC) : 2011(4) ESC 634 (SC) and order dated 18.01.2012 passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. 1515 of 2007 (Sanjesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and others), we allow this Appeal and quash the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.5.2007 with the direction that the appellant will be taken back in service within a period of two months from today but he will not be entitled to any back wages for the period he has remained out of service. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. The respondents are directed to take follow-up action within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ——————