Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 765 (MP)

Aabha Dubey v. State of M. P.

2015-07-23

S.K.GANGELE

body2015
ORDER : S.K. GANGELE, J. 1. The question involved in this petition is in regard to right of the petitioner to be sent for training as required for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector (Police) as she has been selected by the Professional Board and the training is to be commenced in the year 2015. Return has been filed hence, with the consent of the parties, the petition is disposed of finally at motion hearing stage itself. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that although she has been selected for the post of Sub Inspector (Police) after clearing Professional examination, however, she has not been sent on training. 2. Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board, Bhopal issued an advertisement in regard to recruitment for Police Officers including the post of Sub Inspector (Police). The petitioner appeared in the aforesaid competitive examination and she has been selected to be appointed as Sub-Inspector (Police) after completing successful training. The communication was issued to the petitioner by the Professional Examination Board that she has been selected for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, however, the petitioner was not sent for training. 3. The respondents in the return admitted that the petitioner has been selected after clearing professional examination for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector Police. She was called for character verification. On verification, it was noticed that an offence punishable under section 498-A /34 of Indian Penal Code, vide Crime No. 153/14 at Police Station Themi, District Narsinghpur has been registered against the petitioner and trial is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsinghpur. No final decision has been taken in the case hence, the petitioner is not eligible to join the training in view of the provision of M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules 1961 (hereinafter in short 'the Rules 1961'). 4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that there is no bar for joining a training because the employment of the petitioner has been governed in accordance with the provision of Madhya Pradesh Police Manual. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and on account of registration of criminal case, the right of the petitioner cannot be curtailed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and on account of registration of criminal case, the right of the petitioner cannot be curtailed. In support of his contention learned Senior Counsel relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Commr. of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 . 5. Admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner has been denied permission to join training although, she has been selected for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police after facing the competitive examination. Rule 6 of Rules 1961 prescribes in regard to appointment of a candidate to a Government service or posts. Rule 6 (4) of the Rules 1961 which reads as under:--- "(4) No candidate shall eligible for appointment to a service or post who has been convicted of an offence against women; Provided that where such cases are pending in a Court against a candidate his case of appointment shall be kept pending till the final decision of the Criminal case." 6. Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation 47 prescribes procedure for recruitment of Sub-Inspectors. In the present case Regulation 48 (1) is relevant which reads as under:--- "48. Appointment of.--(1) The number of posts available for students of the Madhya Pradesh Police College will depend on the number of vacancies in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors, selection being made according to seniority in the final examination." 7. After conjoint reading of Regulations 47 and 48 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, it is clear that the Sub-Inspectors shall be recruited from M.P. Police College Sagar. It means that appointment of Sub-Inspector commences after completion of training at Police College Sagar. The Rule 6 (4) of the Rules 1961 prescribes prohibition in regard to appointment, however there is no prohibition in regard to sending a selected candidate for training. It means that the petitioner is eligible to join training being selected to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, however, she cannot be appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector until and unless the case which is pending against the petitioner is finalized. This is also a fact that the criminal case has been registered against the petitioner on the basis of complaint lodged by her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Rashmi Dubey against various family members. 8. This is also a fact that the criminal case has been registered against the petitioner on the basis of complaint lodged by her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Rashmi Dubey against various family members. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Police and others (supra) has held that young persons cannot be deprived the right of appointment on account of registration of petty criminal offences. Looking to the provisions of Regulations 47 and 48 of M.P. Police Regulation and proviso to Rule 6 (4) of the Rules 1961, in my opinion denial to the petitioner to join training is arbitrary and illegal. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with the following directions. (A) That the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to join police training on account of her selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. She would be eligible to complete the training, however, the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector on account of completion of successful training shall be subject to the provisions of Rule 6 (4) of the Rules 1961. No order as to the costs.