ORDER 1. With consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved of his non-appointment as Police Constable (G.D). It is urged that having passed the written examination (Annexure P-3) and Physical Proficiency Test and the Interview (Annexure P-4), the petitioner was declared selected and posting order was issued on 31.7.2013 (Annexure P-4); whereby, he was allotted the posted of Constable (G.D) under Superintendent of Police, Panna. It is contended that the petitioner was not given joining on the frivolous ground that there were criminal cases registered against him; whereas the facts are that he had already disclosed the fact that prosecution for offence under sections 294, 324/34, 506 Part 2 IPC ended into compromise on 28.3.2011 on the basis whereof he was acquitted of these charges. In respect of charge under section 452 of IPC, the petitioner, it is urged has been acquitted vide order dated 20.5.2014 in Criminal Case No.506/2007. It is accordingly submitted that non-appointment of the petitioner on the ground of criminal case is not sustainable. 3. Respondents have opposed the relief sought. It is urged that the document Annexure P-5 is not an appointment order but an offer of appointment subject to character/police verification and, therefore, does not create any right in the petitioner for appointment. It is urged that on character/police verification it was found that not only offence under sections 452/323, 294, 336, 506 B/34 IPC and under section 25/27 Arms Act was registered in the year 2007, cases under Gambling Act has also been registered and petitioner was punished thrice vide offence No.115/2009 and 165/2009 under section 3 of Gambling Act. As a result whereof the offer of appointment tendered to the petitioner was not carried forward. 4. Considered the rival submissions. 5. Question is as to whether communication dated 31.7.2013 (Annexure P-5) can be said to be an appointment or offer of appointment and if it is an order of appointment whether any right accrue in favour of the petitioner who is found to have been prosecuted for an offence under sections 452/323, 294, 336, 506 B/34 IPC and under section 25/27 Arms Act and has been punished on three different occasions for an offence under section 3 of the Gambling Act. 6. Rule which governs the recruitment of Constable in the Police Department are G.O.P (Gazetted Orders on Police) No.137/2012 dated 30.7.2012. 6. Rule which governs the recruitment of Constable in the Police Department are G.O.P (Gazetted Orders on Police) No.137/2012 dated 30.7.2012. Clause 17 whereof provides for : ^^17- p;u lwph ls fu;qfDr& ¼1½ lh/kh HkrhZ ds fy;s mijksDr fcUnq 13 ds varxZr cukbZ xbZ p;u lwph ls gh fu;qfDr dh tk,xhA fu;qfDr vkns'k p;u lwph esa ofj"Brk ds Øe esa tkjh fd, tk,axsA fu;qfDr vkns'k tkjh djus ds iwoZ mEehnokjksa dk pfj= lR;kiu LokLF; ijh{k.k djk;k tk,xk pfj= lR;kiu esa dksbZ foijhr fjekdZ u gksus vkSj fu/kkZfjr ekin.M ds vk/kkj ij iw.kZ :i ls LoLFk gksus ij gh mEehnokj dks fu;qfDr vkns'k tkjh dj iqfyl ykbZu vFkok lacaf/kr dk;Zy; esa vken nsus dk vkns'k fn;k tk,xkA ¼2½ fu;qfDr ds mijkUr izR;sd p;fur mEehnokj dks nks o"kZ dh ifjoh{kk ij fu;qDr fd;k tk,xk ,oa fu/kkZfjr izf'k{k.k ij Hkstk tk,xkA ¼3½ ftl in ds fy;s mEehnokj dk p;u fd;k tk,xk dsoy mlh in ij mls fu;qfDr nh tk,axhA mlh laoxZ esa vkxs inksUufr;k¡ rFkk inLFkkiuk,a dh tk,axhA ¼4½ fu/kkZfjr izf'k{k.k ls LFkk;h ;k vLFkk;h NwV dk dksbZ izko/kku ugha gSA izf'k{k.k ij fu/kkZfjr le; esa mifLFkr u gksus okys p;fur mEehnokjksa dk uke p;u lwph ls gVk fn;k tk,xk@fu;qfDr izLrko okil ys fy;k tk,xkA bl lacaèk esa esfMdy izek.k&i= ekU; ugha gksxkA ¼5½ izf'k{k.k ds nkSjku fofHkUu 'kkjhfjd rFkk ckSf)d izf'k{k.k] vL=&'kL= lapkyu vkfn dk izf'k{k.k fn;k tk,xkA blesa fdlh otg ls dksbZ {kfr gksus ij foHkkx ftEesnkj ugha gksxkA izf'k{k.k esa izos'k ysus okys izR;sd vH;FkhZ dks izf'k{k.k ds nkSjku fu/kkZfjr ijh{kk,a lQyrkiwoZd mRrh.kZ djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA izf'k{k.k ds nkSjku fu/kkZfjr ijh{kk esa vuqÙkh.kZ gq, mEehnokj dks lacfèkr ijh{kk,a mÙkh.kZ djus ds fy;s ,d vfrfjDr volj iznku fd;k tk,xkA ¼6½ tks mEehnokj ftl bdkbZ esa fu;qDr fd;k tk,xk ogka mls de ls de 5 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ djuh gksxh] mlds ckn gh og vU; bdkbZ esa LFkkUkkarj.k dk ik= gks ldsxkA ¼7½ p;fur mEehnokj dks fu;qfDr ds ckn iqfyl foHkkx dh vU; 'kk[kkvksa o eè;izns'k 'kklu ds lHkh foHkkxksa ds varxZr jkT; ds vanj o jkT; ds ckgj inLFk fd;k tk ldsxkA jkT; ljdkj ds varxZr fofHkUu foHkkxksa tSls jkT; vkfFkZd vijk/k vUos"k.k C;wjks ¼,l- ch- vkbZ- bZ- vks-½] fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼yksdk;qDr½ vFkok vU; fdlh laLFkkvksa esa dh tkus okyh inLFkkiuk esa mldh lgefr dh vko';drk ugha gSA** 7. Apparent it is from sub-clause (1) of clause 17 that character/police verification precedes the order of appointment. Apparent it is from sub-clause (1) of clause 17 that character/police verification precedes the order of appointment. In the case at hand close reading of order dated 31.7.2013 (Annexure P-5) though mentions the Unit which has been allotted to the petitioner but the appointment was subjected to stipulations contained therein, viz., 1- p;fur mEehnokjksa dks inLFkkiuk gsrq mUgsa vkcafVr dh xbZ bdkbZ esa iqfyl v/kh{kd@lsukuh ds le{k ,d lIrkg ds vUnj fjiksVZ djuk gSA leLr p;fur mEehnokj viuk QksVks ;qDr igpku i= Hkh lkFk yk,aA 2- iqfyl v/kh{kd@lsukuh dk;kZy; }kjk miyC/k djk;k x;k pfj= lR;kiu QkeZ Hkjdj] QksVks yxkdj dk;kZy; esa tek djsa] rkfd pfj= lR;kiu izkFkfedrk ds vk/kkj ij djk;k tk ldsA 3- iqfyl v/kh{kd@lsukuh dk;kZy; }kjk mEehnokj dks ftyk esMhdy cksMZ ds le{k esMhdy ijh{k.k gsrq mifLFkr gksus dh frfFk izkIr dj esMhdy ijh{k.k djk;k tk,A 4- vkids }kjk viuk x`g ftyk Lo;a crk;k x;k gSA vr% x`g ftyk ds izek.k Lo:i lsukuh@iqfyl v/kh{kd ds dk;kZy; esa ewy fuoklh izek.k i= izLrqr djsaA 5- fdlh Hkh mEehnokj dks lhuk vFkok Å¡pkbZ esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh NwV ugha nh tk,xhA** 8. Thus, the said communication dated 31.7.2013 can at most be an offer of appointment rather an order of appointment because the same has been subjected to character/police verification. The contention of behalf of the petitioner that communication dated 31.7.2013 (Annexure P-5) is a letter of appointment is negatived. 9. The next issue now remains as to whether the petitioner who is to be enrolled in a disciplined force have a vested right for such appointment when besides having been tried for offences under sections 452/323, 294, 336, 506 B/34 IPC and under section 25/27 Arms Act the petitioner on three different occasions has been punished for an offence under section 3 of the Gambling Act. In this context reference can be had of the decision of Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Parvez Khan [2015(1)JLJ 79 (SC)=[2015(1) MPHT 1], wherein their Lordships reiterating the law laid down in Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh [ (2013) 7 SCC 685 ], were pleased to hold : “13. From the above observations of this Court, it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be worthy of confidence and must be a person of utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character and integrity. From the above observations of this Court, it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be worthy of confidence and must be a person of utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was completely exonerated. Persons who are likely to erode the credibility of the police ought not to enter the police force. No doubt the Screening Committee has not been constituted in the case considered by this Court, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent, in the present case, the Superintendent of Police has gone into the matter. The Superintendent of Police is the appointing authority. There is no allegation of mala fides against the person taking the said decision nor the decision is shown to be perverse or irrational. There is no material to show that the appellant was falsely implicated. Basis of impugned judgment is acquittal for want of evidence or discharge based on compounding” 10. When the present case is tested on the anvil of the law laid down by Supreme Court in State of M.P. and others v. Parvez Khan (supra), and Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh (supra), the relief as sought for by the petitioner cannot be acceded to. 11. In view whereof petition fails and is dismissed. M. K. Agrawal for petitioner; Ajay Pratap Singh, Government Advocate for respondent/State.