Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2163 (RAJ)

Vikas v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-09

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 24/7/2019 aggrieved against the order dated 5/4/2018 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable pursuant to the Constable recruitment, 2012 and a direction has been sought to the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable with all consequential and notional benefits. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner applied for the post of Constable pursuant to the advertisement dated 28/9/2012 (Annex. 1), wherein, the petitioner was selected for provisional appointment and was called for document verification. However, as the petitioner was subjected to a criminal trial and said fact was not disclosed in the application form, the petitioner was refused appointment. 3. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5675/14 before Jaipur Bench, which petition was decided on 13/8/2014 and the respondents were directed to examine the case of the petitioner based on the order dated 6/8/2014 passed by Inspected General of Police (Police Head Quarter), Jaipur. 4. The respondents by order dated 12/12/2014 (Annex. 7), pursuant to the order dated 13/8/2014 passed at Jaipur Bench of this Court, examined the case of the petitioner and held that the petitioner was not entitled for appointment. 5. It appears that the petitioner, a resident of Jhunjhunu, who had earlier approached Bench at Jaipur, did not question the validity of the order dated 12/12/2014 for a long time and, thereafter, a petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17059/2017 was filed at Jodhpur, which writ petition, without issuing notices to the respondents, was disposed of by a coordinate bench of this court with the direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in light of the judgment in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India : (2016) 8 SCC 471 . 6. The respondents whereafter again reconsidered the case of the petitioner and passed order dated 5/4/2018 (Annex. 9) inter alia holding that the offences for which the petitioner was tried were not trivial in nature, he was proceeded against for serious offences and the said aspect was suppressed in the application as well as the verification roll and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for appointment. 7. 9) inter alia holding that the offences for which the petitioner was tried were not trivial in nature, he was proceeded against for serious offences and the said aspect was suppressed in the application as well as the verification roll and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for appointment. 7. Whereafter also, the petitioner did not question the rejection of his candidature for a long time and after passage of about 15 months the present writ petition has been filed seeking to question the validity of the rejection of his candidature by order impugned dated 5/4/2018. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the merit of the order passed by the respondents and submitted that merely on account of suppression of a decided criminal case, the petitioner could not have been deprived of appointment on the post of Police Constable and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner was put a query pertaining to the delay in questioning the rejection of petitioner's candidature inasmuch as once pursuant to the direction given by the Court at Jaipur Bench the order was passed by the respondents on 12/12/2014 (Annex. 7), the same apparently was questioned after passage of three years, wherein, also a prayer made was to get the representation considered, which prayer was granted. Whereafter, the order was passed on 5/4/2018 and again the same was questioned after 15 months. No response has been given by the learned counsel for the petitioner nor from the entire writ petition, anything is discernible qua the said aspect. 10. Apparently, the cause of action has been sought to be revived by the petitioner based on passing of the order dated 5/4/2018 by the respondents in compliance of directions issued by this Court in a writ petition filed after three years of passing of the original order dated 12/12/2014. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal & Anr. vs. Shri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179 has considered the said aspect and has laid down that the consideration of representation relating to a stale claim or dead grievance does not give right to a fresh cause of action. Apparently, the petitioner has sought to revive a dead/stale claim on account of decision of representation made by the respondents, which attempt on the part of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. 12. Apparently, the petitioner has sought to revive a dead/stale claim on account of decision of representation made by the respondents, which attempt on the part of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. 12. So far as rejection of the candidature of petitioner is concerned, recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar : (2018) 1 SCC 797 referring to the judgments in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi vs. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685 , Inspector General of Police vs. S. Samuthiram : (2013) 1 SCC 598 and Avtar Singh (supra) came to the following conclusion: "13. It is thus well settled that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle him for appointment to the post. Still it is open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether he is suitable for appointment to the post. From the observations of this Court in Mehar Singh and Parvez Khan cases, it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be of 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 honourably acquitted/completely exonerated. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is shown to be mala fide. The Screening Committee also must be alive to the importance of the trust repose in it and must examine the candidate with utmost character. 14. ........ 15. From the above details, we find that the Screening Committee examined each and every case of the respondents and reasonings for their acquittal and taken the decision. While deciding whether a person involved in a criminal case has been acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a post in a police force, nature of offence in which he is involved, whether it was an honourable acquittal or only an extension of benefit of doubt because of witnesses turned hostile and flaws in the prosecution are all the aspects to be considered by the Screening Committee for taking the decision whether the candidate is suitable for the post. As pointed out earlier, the Screening Committee examined each and every case and reasonings for their acquittal and took decision that the respondents are not suitable for the post of Constable in Chandigarh Police. As pointed out earlier, the Screening Committee examined each and every case and reasonings for their acquittal and took decision that the respondents are not suitable for the post of Constable in Chandigarh Police. The procedure followed is as per guideline 2(A)(b) and object of such screening is to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enters police force. While so, the court cannot substitute its views for the decision of the Screening Committee. 16. On behalf of the respondents, much reliance was placed upon Joginder Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others (2015) 2 SCC 377 . In the said case, the appellant thereon was charged under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325 and 307 IPC but acquitted by the trial court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against him since complainant as well as injured eye witnesses failed to identify the assailants and the complainant had stated that his signature was obtained on a blank sheet by the Investigating Officer. The case involved was a family dispute. In such facts and circumstances, this Court held that acquittal of appellant Joginder Singh was an honourable acquittal and hence, he should not be denied appointment to the post in question. The decision in Joginder Singh case does not advance the case of the respondents herein. 17. In a catena of judgments, the importance of integrity and high standard of conduct in police force has been emphasized. As held in Mehar Singh case, the decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In the case in hand, there is nothing to suggest that the decision of the Screening Committee is mala fide. The decision of the Screening Committee that the respondents are not suitable for being appointed to the post of Constable does not call for interference. The Tribunal and the High Court, in our view, erred in setting aside the decision of the Screening Committee and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 13. The decision of the Screening Committee that the respondents are not suitable for being appointed to the post of Constable does not call for interference. The Tribunal and the High Court, in our view, erred in setting aside the decision of the Screening Committee and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 13. In the present case, in view of the fact that the petitioner was tried for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 448, 429, 341 and 325 IPC, which were not trivial in nature and the fact that suppression was made in the application form as well as verification roll, the respondents came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment. 14. In view of the law laid down in the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra) even on merits no interference is called for in the present matter. 15. In view of the above discussion, besides the fact that the petitioner has attempted to revive a stale cause, earlier by filing writ petition after three years after once his case had already been considered pursuant to the directions of this Court and now approaching the Court after 15 months of passing of the order, and even otherwise there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.