Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 51 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Sarfaraj Siddiquee

2022-01-11

PIYUSH AGRAWAL, RAJESH BINDAL

body2022
ORDER : 1. The State has filed the present intra-court appeal impugning the order dated July 16, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge. Vide impugned order, learned Single Judge had set-aside the order dated May 22, 2020 passed by the Inspector General of Police (PAC), U.P., Lucknow, whereby the respondent/petitioner was not sent for training, though he was selected. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that after being selected, the respondent was informed vide letter dated February 20, 2019 to report at Armed Police Training College, Sitapur along with original certificates and passport size photographs for training by the evening of February 24, 2019. Vide said letter, the respondent was also informed that in case he did not present himself for training within one month from the date of initiation of training without any valid reason/permission, action for cancellation of his selection/candidature shall be taken. The respondent having not reported for training within time, his request for being sent for training was rejected vide order dated May 22, 2020. 3. Further, it was submitted that the learned Single Judge has wrongly relied upon Paragraph 17.4 of the Training Syllabus, which was not applicable in the case in hand, as the same pertains to the selected candidates, who are under training, and not the respondent, who had not even reported for training. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the call letter was issued to the respondent on February 20, 2019 directing him to report for training on February 24, 2019 along with original certificates and passport size photographs. In case of failure to report within a period of one month thereafter without any valid reason, action was to be taken for cancellation of his selection/candidature. The respondent could not report for training for the reason that he was suffering from Typhoid. The intimation thereof was given by the respondent to the Director General of Police (Training), Lucknow on April 10, 2019. It was clearly stated therein that vide prescription of the Doctor dated March 12, 2019, he was advised rest for three weeks. As he has now recovered, he may be allowed to join the training. It was submitted that training is imparted to every selected candidate before his formal appointment. It was clearly stated therein that vide prescription of the Doctor dated March 12, 2019, he was advised rest for three weeks. As he has now recovered, he may be allowed to join the training. It was submitted that training is imparted to every selected candidate before his formal appointment. When no heed was paid to the aforesaid representation of the respondent, he again represented on May 29, September 2 and October 3, 2019. The request made by the respondent was illegally rejected vide order dated May 22, 2020. The same has rightly been set-aside by the learned Single Judge. 5. He further submitted that the letter dated February 20, 2019, vide which the respondent was directed to report for training, clearly provided that the action for cancellation of selection/candidature of the respondent shall be taken if he did not report for training within one month without any valid reason. In the case in hand, the respondent had a valid reason as he was suffering from Typhoid. The medical records were sent to the appellants, however, they failed to consider the same. In case an opportunity is granted, the respondent will now join his training and will claim all benefits of service only from the date he is given appointment and not otherwise. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the respondent deserves to be granted the relief prayed for by him in the writ petition though on different ground than the one mentioned by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned. In our opinion, Paragraph 17.4 of the Training Syllabus may not be relevant in the case of the respondent for the reason that he had yet to join the training. The conditions as prescribed in the Training Syllabus would be applicable when a candidate joins the training. However, a perusal of the letter dated February 20, 2019 shows that the respondent was directed to report for training on February 24, 2019 or within a month thereafter, in case there is any valid reason. In the case in hand, the medical records produced by the respondent, which were also sent by him to the appellants, show that the respondent suffered from Tyhpoid and remained under treatment from March 12, 2019 onwards. He was declared fit by the Medical Care Unit, Katchehry, Varanasi on May 27, 2019. In the case in hand, the medical records produced by the respondent, which were also sent by him to the appellants, show that the respondent suffered from Tyhpoid and remained under treatment from March 12, 2019 onwards. He was declared fit by the Medical Care Unit, Katchehry, Varanasi on May 27, 2019. The respondent had been making repeated representations to the appellants for consideration of his candidature and for sending him for training. However, the same was not considered and it was only vide order dated May 22, 2020 that his request was rejected. 7. We find that there was valid reason available with the respondent for not joining the training within the time specified in the letter dated February 20, 2019. He had sought permission from the Competent Authority to join training after he was declared medically fit. However, his request was rejected. 8. In the aforesaid factual matrix and considering the fact that the respondent was duly selected in the process of selection, which is always competitive, we find that the reason assigned by the respondent for not joining the training, after the period specified in the letter dated February 20, 2019, should have been accepted by the Competent Authority as the training was before formal appointment. 9. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellants shall now allow the respondent to join training in the next available course for the purpose. As fairly stated by the learned counsel for the respondent, the respondent will be entitled to all service benefits only from the date he is appointed in service and not with respect to the selection process in which he was a successful candidate.