ORDER : In response to the recruitment notification Rc.No.88/ Rect.admin.1/2018 dated 31.05.2018, the petitioner applied for the post of SCT Police Constable (TSSP). The petitioner was provisionally selected on 24.09.2019. Thereafter, he submitted an attestation form to the department as required by them on 09.10.2019. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 10.03.2020 from the respondent No.3 calling upon him to submit explanation alleging that there was suppression of information about his involvement in a criminal case vide Cr.No.319 of 2016 registered for the offences under Sections 448, 427, 504 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 02.07.2020 stating that the criminal case pending against him was disposed of 08.09.2018 and ended in acquittal; that failure to mention about the criminal case in the attestation form was a mistake due to lack of proper knowledge. It is contended that though the mistake was not intentional, the impugned memo dated 04.11.2020 was issued canceling the selection of the petitioner. 2. Mr. Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that all offences in Cr.No.319 of 2016 are baliable, trivial in nature and it was a summary trial case. The offences do not involve moral turpitude and do not affect the conscience of the society. Moreover, the competent Court passed award compounding the offence, which is equal to acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. He further submitted that initially the petitioner downloaded the attestation form through online and went to submit the form. But he was supplied with a different attestation form and he was asked to fill it. As a result, he could not concentrate on the change of columns used in the new attestation form, as he was under the impression that involvement in the crime means whether the petitioner has committed any crime. Therefore, he mentioned ‘NO’ against column No.11. Since he mentioned ‘NO’ in the said column, he did not mention all other details in the rest of the boxes in column No.11. Such explanation was given in reply to the show cause notice. At the first instance, the selection of the petitioner was cancelled vide memo Rc.No.213/Rect/Genl./2/2019 dated 07.09.2020. Therefore, he mentioned ‘NO’ against column No.11. Since he mentioned ‘NO’ in the said column, he did not mention all other details in the rest of the boxes in column No.11. Such explanation was given in reply to the show cause notice. At the first instance, the selection of the petitioner was cancelled vide memo Rc.No.213/Rect/Genl./2/2019 dated 07.09.2020. The petitioner filed WP.No.17066 of 2020 challenging the said memo and the writ petition was allowed directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in AVTAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA, (2016) 8 SCC 471 and also keeping in view the acquittal of the petitioner by a competent criminal Court. 3. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner approached the respondents No.2 and 3 along with representation dated 23.10.2020. However, without considering the same in proper perspective, the impugned order dated 04.11.2020 was passed cancelling the selection of the petitioner again. He further submitted that the impugned order of the respondent No.2 is against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in AVTAR SINGH’s case (1 supra). The respondent No.2 quoted paras 38.2 and 38.3 of the judgment in AVTAR SINGH’s case (1 supra). In fact, the guidelines mentioned in paras 38.4 and 38.4.1 are applicable to the case of the petitioner, which were ignored by the respondent No.2. The judgment in Civil Appeal No.893 of 2020 dated 31.01.2020, cited in the impugned order, is not applicable to the facts of the case, as the offences alleged therein are under Sections 294, 323, 324, 326, 336, 337, 427, 379, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, which are serious in nature. Further, the respondent No.2 did not follow the guidelines 38.2 and 38.3 by not considering the special circumstances mentioned by the petitioner while giving the information. Moreover, the fact that the criminal case against the petitioner ended in acquittal was not considered and thus, there is flagrant violation of the guidelines in AVTAR SINGH’s case (1 supra). 4. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are summarized as under: 1. The petitioner did not suppress any material facts intentionally; 2. The mistake in filling the attestation form on 09.10.2019 is not intentional; 3. The respondent No.2 did not consider explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice; 4. 4. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are summarized as under: 1. The petitioner did not suppress any material facts intentionally; 2. The mistake in filling the attestation form on 09.10.2019 is not intentional; 3. The respondent No.2 did not consider explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice; 4. The petitioner was falsely implicated in the criminal case, which ended in acquittal of the petitioner; 5. The offences alleged against the petitioner have no bearing on his future duties as a police constable; 6. The respondent No.2 did not follow the ratio of the Supreme Court in AVTAR SINGH’s case (1 supra); 7. The respondents conveniently omitted the guidelines mentioned in paras No.38.4 and 38.4.1 in AVTAR SINGH’s case (1 supra). 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, it is submitted that in the attestation form to the question ‘Were you involved in any Criminal case’, the petitioner specifically replied ‘NO’. For the remaining related questions like Crime No & year, Name of the PS, whether arrested by the police etc., the petitioner replied ‘NO’. There is one more column in the attestation form, which reads ‘Whether you were prosecuted by the Police in a court of law? If so indicate the present stage of this case (1) Under Trial (2) Convicted (3) Compromised (4) Acquitted.’ The petitioner did not reply to this. Thus, it is clear that the information sought was not only about pending cases, but cases registered at any time during his life time, which the petitioner failed to furnish. The petitioner should have been fair enough to share material facts irrespective of nature of offence. The suppression of facts has to be viewed seriously. The Board after carefully going through the explanation and the connected records issued orders cancelling the provisional selection of the petitioner to the post of SCT PC (TSSP) vide memo dated 07.09.2020. 6. The petitioner should have been fair enough to share material facts irrespective of nature of offence. The suppression of facts has to be viewed seriously. The Board after carefully going through the explanation and the connected records issued orders cancelling the provisional selection of the petitioner to the post of SCT PC (TSSP) vide memo dated 07.09.2020. 6. It is further stated that the petitioner has signed declaration in the attestation form stating that the statements in the form are true and best to his knowledge; that he was aware that furnishing false information or suppression of any factual information would be a disqualification and render him unfit for employment under the Government; if at any time it comes to notice that false information has been furnished by the petitioner or there had been suppression of factual information in the attestation, his services would be terminated solely on this ground. The respondent No.2 further submitted that keeping in view the orders of the High Court dated 06.10.2020 in WP.No.17066 of 2020 and the observations of the Supreme Court in AVTAR SINGH’s case (1 supra), speaking orders vide memo dated 04.11.2020 were issued canceling the provisional selection of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner’s case will not fit under para 38.4.1, as the criminal case in which the petitioner was involved was not a petty case. The petitioner was involved in an offence under Sections 448, 427, 504 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner is A3 in the said case. The petitioner is alleged to have trespassed into the office of the complainant, quarreled with them, pelted stones and caused damage to the glass of the windows and doors. The police filed a charge sheet, after completing investigation. While the case was pending trial vide CC.No.637 of 2017, the case was compromised before the Lok Adalat on 08.09.2018. 7. It is further stated in the counter that discharge on account of compromise cannot be taken to be conclusive for suitability of candidate for recruitment to the post of Police Constable. The victim may be prepared to settle the matter for any consideration other than innocence of the accused, but it did not wash off the criminal antecedents of the accused. Entering into police service requires a candidate to be of character, integrity and clean antecedents. The victim may be prepared to settle the matter for any consideration other than innocence of the accused, but it did not wash off the criminal antecedents of the accused. Entering into police service requires a candidate to be of character, integrity and clean antecedents. Thus, the petitioner’s case cannot be considered for appointment under para 38.4.1 of AVTAR SINGH’s case (1 supra). The judgment in Civil Appeal No.893 of 2020 is applicable to the facts of the case, as the offences in Cr.No.319 of 2016, wherein the petitioner is accused, are equally serious and the matter was compromised, which cannot be considered to be acquittal on merits. Further, it is not necessary that only those candidates, who are involved under same section of law, are to be kept away from appointment. The main issue involved is suppression and the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.893 of 2020 held as under: “… The respondent was seeking public employment in the State police service. His duties, on appointment to the service, would be of a responsible character, bearing intrinsically on the maintenance of law and order and with consequences for personal liberty of citizens. To expect that an applicant for such a position would be truthful in the disclosure of information sought about the antecedents is a justifiable basis for assessment of personality and character. The employer can legitimately conclude that a person who has suppressed material facts does not deserve to be in its employment.” 8. Mr. M.V. Rama Rao, learned Special Government Pleader for Home, submitted that the petitioner has intentionally suppressed material information. There was no acquittal on merits. Thus, the impugned order was issued in accordance with law following the judgment of this Court in WP.No.17066 of 2020 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in AVTAR SINGH’s case (1 supra). There are no merits in the case and it is liable to be dismissed. 9. The relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted below: “6. In the light of the Hon’ble High Court Orders dated 06.10.2020, the case of Sri. Mankhala Shiva Kumar has been carefully examined duly considering his reply to Show Cause Notice and also keeping the observation made in Avtar Singh case as follows: 7. 9. The relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted below: “6. In the light of the Hon’ble High Court Orders dated 06.10.2020, the case of Sri. Mankhala Shiva Kumar has been carefully examined duly considering his reply to Show Cause Notice and also keeping the observation made in Avtar Singh case as follows: 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Case at Para 38.2 and 38.3 stated that “While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take note of Special Circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision” 8. As per Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Rules issued vide GO Ms No.97, Home (Legal) Department dated 01.05.2006 vide Rule 3 (G)(i) suppression of material facts (either in the Application Form or in the Attestation Form) is a disqualification for appointment. The same was also mentioned at para -27 of Notification Rc.No.88/Rect/Admn.1/2018 dated 31.05.2018. 9. Further the Apex Court in a recent judgment dated 31.01.2020 in Civil Appeal No.893 of 2020 observed that “The respondent was seeking public employment in the State police service. His duties, on appointment to the service, would be of a responsible character, bearing intrinsically on the maintenance of law and order and with consequences for personal liberty of citizens. To expect that an applicant for such a position would be truthful in the disclosure of information sought about the antecedents is a justifiable basis for assessment of personality and character. The employer can legitimately conclude that a person who has suppressed material facts does not deserve to be in its employment.” 10. As far as the case in Cr.No.319/2016 U/s 448, 427, 504 r/w 34 IPC of Kadthal PS, wherein the petitioner was involved as A3, the accused criminally trespassed into the Office premises of the complainant, pelted Stones and damaged the glasses of Windows/doors. The accused compromised the case with the Complainant before the Lok Adalath. The Victim may be prepared to settle the matter for any consideration other than innocence of the accused, but it did not wash off the Criminal antecedents of the accused. 11. The accused compromised the case with the Complainant before the Lok Adalath. The Victim may be prepared to settle the matter for any consideration other than innocence of the accused, but it did not wash off the Criminal antecedents of the accused. 11. Keeping in view of the above referred Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also Rule 3 (G) (i) of SCT Rules para-27 of the Notification dated 31.05.2018 and facts of the case, the case of the Petitioner has been examined and in the circumstances stated above there are no merits to consider the case of the petitioner to appoint him as SCT PC and send him for Training. Accordingly, provisional selection of Sri. Mankhala Shiva Kumar (Reg.No.1162219) to the post of SCT PC (TSSP) in Recruitment -2018 is hereby cancelled.” 10. The Supreme Court made the following observations in AVTAR SINGH’s case (1 supra): “29. The verification of antecedents is necessary to find out fitness of incumbent, in the process if a declarant is found to be of good moral character on due verification of antecedents, merely by suppression of involvement in trivial offence which was not pending on date of filling attestation form, whether he may be deprived of employment? There may be case of involving moral turpitude/serious offence in which employee has been acquitted but due to technical reasons or giving benefit of doubt. There may be situation when person has been convicted of an offence before filling verification form or case is pending and information regarding it has been suppressed, whether employer should wait till outcome of pending criminal case to take a decision or in case when action has been initiated there is already conclusion of criminal case resulting in conviction/acquittal as the case may be. The situation may arise for consideration of various aspects in a case where disclosure has been made truthfully of required information, then also authority is required to consider and verify fitness for appointment. Similarly in case of suppression also, if in the process of verification of information, certain information comes to notice then also employer is required to take a decision considering various aspects before holding incumbent as unfit. Similarly in case of suppression also, if in the process of verification of information, certain information comes to notice then also employer is required to take a decision considering various aspects before holding incumbent as unfit. If on verification of antecedents a person is found fit at the same time authority has to consider effect of suppression of a fact that he was tried for trivial offence which does not render him unfit, what importance to be attached to such nondisclosure. Can there be single yardstick to deal with all kinds of cases? 30. The employer is given “discretion” to terminate or otherwise to condone the omission. Even otherwise, once employer has the power to take a decision when at the time of filling verification form declarant has already been convicted/acquitted, in such a case, it becomes obvious that all the facts and attending circumstances, including impact of suppression or false information are taken into consideration while adjudging suitability of an incumbent for services in question. In case the employer comes to the conclusion that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would have been disclosed it would not have adversely affected fitness of an incumbent, for reasons to be recorded, it has power to condone the lapse. However, while doing so employer has to act prudently on due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered. For higher officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high and even slightest false information or suppression may by itself render a person unsuitable for the post. However, same standard cannot be applied to each and every post. In concluded criminal cases, it has to be seen what has been suppressed is material fact and would have rendered an incumbent unfit for appointment. An employer would be justified in not appointing or if appointed, to terminate services of such incumbent on due consideration of various aspects. Even if disclosure has been made truthfully, the employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing so effect of conviction and background facts of case, nature of offence, etc. have to be considered. Even if acquittal has been made, employer may consider nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and decline to appoint a person who is unfit or of dubious character. have to be considered. Even if acquittal has been made, employer may consider nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and decline to appoint a person who is unfit or of dubious character. In case employer comes to conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal case would not affect the fitness for employment, incumbent may be appointed or continued in service. 35. Suppression of “material” information presupposes that what is suppressed that “matters” not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases. 36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects. … 38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus: 38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. 38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. 38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. 38.4. 38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. 38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. 38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted: - 38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. … 38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. 38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. 38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. 38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. 38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. 38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. 38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.” 11. The composition of offence amounts to an acquittal in terms of Section 320(8) Cr.P.C., which is extracted below: “320. Compounding of offences- … (8) The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.” Thus, when an offence is compounded, it results in acquittal for all purposes. The interesting issue which arises for consideration here is ‘whether such acquittal is a clean acquittal or acquittal on merits or ‘honourable acquittal’. 12. Honourable acquittal is not defined under criminal law. It is coined by judicial pronouncements. A clean acquittal is said to be an acquittal on contest and on merits of the case unlike an acquittal on technical grounds like in a situation where an accused is given benefit of doubt or where witnesses have turned hostile. But in his case, this Court is no concerned with an acquittal on merits or technical grounds. This is an acquittal on composition of offences. Certain classes of offences are compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Again there is sub-classification of compoundable offences under sub sections (1) and (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Sub-section (1) covers cases which are compoundable without permission of the Court and Sub-section (2) covers offences which are compoundable with the permission of the Court. 13. A crime is said to be a public wrong and every crime registered has to reach its logical conclusion irrespective of parties (accused and victim/complainant) entering into a compromise for withdrawal of prosecution. 13. A crime is said to be a public wrong and every crime registered has to reach its logical conclusion irrespective of parties (accused and victim/complainant) entering into a compromise for withdrawal of prosecution. It is the State which undertakes the responsibility on behalf of the victim(s) to prosecute the accused and bring them to justice. But at the same time, the law makers in their legislative wisdom have categorized certain offences as “compoundable” understandably keeping in view the gravity of the offences and its impact on the society. The compoundable offences are less serious offences and are private in nature. Further the offences covered under Sub-Section (1) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. are minor offences and trivial in nature and mostly having limited impact on the society. These offences do not require any permission of the Court for composition. 14. The Law Commission of India has made the following observations in para 24.66 of its 41st report discussing about Section 345 Cr.P.C. of 1848 (corresponding to Section 320 Cr.P.C. of 1973): “24.66. … The broad principle that forms the basis of the present scheme is that where the offence is essentially of a private nature and relatively not serious, it is compoundable …” 15. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in RAJEEV VERMA v. STATE OF U.P., 2004 SCC OnLine All 1821 considered the report of the Law Commission of India while dealing with a writ petition filed for quashing of charge sheet registered under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and it was observed as under: “23. An analysis of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and an examination of its legislative history shows that usually two classes of cases have been made non-compoundable. These are very grave cases, or cases against the public interest. When basically it is an individual who is aggrieved, those provision have usually been made compoundable, particularly where the offence is of minor nature. The Law Commission in para 24.66 of its 41st Report in connection with S. 345 of old, 1898 Code of Criminal Procedure which corresponds with the present S. 320 Cr.P.C. has expressed it as follows: “The broad principle that forms the basis of the present scheme is that where the offence is essentially of a private nature and relatively not serious, it is compoundable.” 16. The petitioner herein was involved in offences under Sections 448, 427, 504 read with Section 34 IPC, which are covered under Section 320(1) Cr.P.C. The petitioner and the complainant have arrived at a settlement and compounded the offences under Lok Adalat award dated 08.09.2018 in C.C.No.637 of 2017. 17. In the opinion of this court acquittal in the instant case has to be treated as a clean acquittal, more particularly, since the offences are covered under Section 320 (1) Cr.P.C. and compoundable without permission of the Court. The reasoning of the respondent No.2 in para 10 of the impugned order that ‘…The victim may be prepared to settle the matter for any consideration other than innocence of the accused, but it did not wash Off the Criminal antecedents of the accused’, is unwarranted, perverse and improper. Such an observation is also contrary to the provision under Section 320 Cr.P.C and judgment of the Supreme Court in AVTAR SINGH’s case (1 supra). In order to test the character or nature of a proceeding arising out of criminal law, the authority ought to have had basic understanding of criminal law, the nature of offences as to whether they are compoundable or not and the effect of such composition of offences. 18. The next consequential issue is “what is the effect of suppression of involvement/acquittal in the criminal case by the petitioner”. The offences as discussed supra are trivial and compoundable in nature. Even if involvement in such criminal case and acquittal was disclosed it would not have altered the situation. The suppression if any is not of a material fact and the respondents No.2 should, in all probabilities, have condoned the lapse if any. 19. It needs to be pointed out that the petitioner in his explanation dated 02.07.2020 stated that in the form downloaded by him, the relevant columns with regard to criminal offences was not there but due to lack of knowledge, he had indicated ‘NO’ in the column with respect to criminal case and related columns. Such explanation of the petitioner is not convincing to come to a conclusion that suppression of information was unintentional. 20. Such explanation of the petitioner is not convincing to come to a conclusion that suppression of information was unintentional. 20. However, the respondent No.2 ought to have seen that even if the petitioner had disclosed such information about involvement in criminal case and consequent acquittal, it would not have had any bearing on his selection and as to whether the petitioner would have been held to be unfit for public post. “ … In case the employer comes to the conclusion that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would have been disclosed it would not have adversely affected fitness of an incumbent, for reasons to be recorded, it has power to condone the lapse … (see para 30 AVTAR SINGH’s case (1 supra). Though discretion is available for the respondent No.2 (see AVTAR SINGH’s case (1 supra), this Court is of the view that such discretion was arbitrarily exercised by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 did not take into consideration that the petitioner was involved in bailable offences, further that acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C., on offences being compounded, was in less serious offences. 21. The decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.893 of 2020 is not applicable to the facts of the case as the offences therein are under Sections 294/323/324/326/336/337/427/379/506/34 IPC. The offences under Sections 324, 326 and 379 IPC are grievous in nature. Sections 324 and 326 IPC are non-compoundable offences. The employee was arrested in the said case and has been released on bail and such information was suppressed by him. Later the criminal proceedings were quashed in the High Court. The employee was granted bail on 28.07.2009 and he applied for the post of Constable on 29.10.2011 and appointed on 14.12.2011. Subsequently, he moved quash petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and it was allowed by order dated 22.11.2013 on the basis of compromise between the parties. The Supreme Court in para 8 of the judgment observed that ‘… The criminal case was quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C on the basis of a compromise between the parties much after the order of discharge’. In the present case, the recruitment notification was issued on 31.05.2018 and the petitioner was provisionally selected on 24.09.2019. The Supreme Court in para 8 of the judgment observed that ‘… The criminal case was quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C on the basis of a compromise between the parties much after the order of discharge’. In the present case, the recruitment notification was issued on 31.05.2018 and the petitioner was provisionally selected on 24.09.2019. Even prior to his selection, the criminal case ended in acquittal vide order of the Lok Adalat dated 08.09.2018 on offence being compounded. More so, the petitioner submitted the attestation form on 09.10.2019 by which time there was no stigma attached to him. 22. In view of the above observations, the impugned order is unjust and arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and the same is set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner as Police Constable under SCT Police Constable (TSSP) pursuant to provisional selection of the petitioner dated 24.09.2019 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.