JUDGMENT

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 30798 of 2008.

2. These appeals have been filed by the Appellants against the common judgment and order dated 24.03.2008 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 5909 CAT of 2003 and Civil Writ Petition No. 7754 CAT of 2004, by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby the High Court set aside the common order dated 12.3.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short "CAT"), Chandigarh, urging various grounds in support of the same.

3. As both the matters are identical, for the sake of brevity and convenience, we would deal with the facts of Civil Appeal No. 2325 of 2009, which are stated hereunder.

The Respondent-Union Territory of Chandigarh, had invited applications from eligible persons for recruitment to the post of Constables in the year 1997. The said selection was quashed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. However, in the year 2001, A fresh selection process was started by the Respondents, as per the decision of the Administration of the first Respondent wherein it has stated that the candidates who had applied in response to the previous advertisement (in 1997), were exempted from applying afresh.

The Appellant, Joginder Singh, who had also applied in the year 1997, was also called in 2001 and was among the 40 candidates who had applied were declared as successful candidates. The Appellant was medically examined and was called for an interview as he was found fit for selection to the post of Constable. However, after verification of his antecedents and character from his native village, it was found that he was involved in a case with FIR No. 200 dated 14.04.1998, under the provisions of Sections 148/149/323/325/307 Indian Penal Code a criminal case was registered at Police Station Sadar Bhiwani. After the trial was conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, the Appellant was acquitted from the charges levelled against him on 04.10.1999. The Appellant filed Original Application before the CAT, Chandigarh, for issuing a direction to the Respondent for issuance of an appointment order in view of his selection to the post in the selection process.

4. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh after hearing the parties passed an order dated 12.3.2003, allowing the Original Application of the Appellant and directed the Respondents to appoint the Appellant to the post of Constable within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the CAT, the Respondent-Union Territory filed C.W.P. No. 5909 CAT of 2003 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh questioning the correctness of the same. The High Court vide its common order dated 24.03.2008 has set aside the order of the CAT and allowed the writ petition.

6. The High Court has opined that the order of the CAT passed in favour of the Appellant, suffers from illegality, which cannot be sustained in law and accordingly set aside the same. Hence, this appeal has been preferred by the Appellant urging various legal grounds.

7. It is the contention of Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellant that the Appellant was honourably acquitted from the charges in the criminal proceedings initiated against him by the State of Punjab and undisputedly, there is no allegation of concealment of the relevant information to be furnished by the Appellant in his application to the Respondents.

8. It has been further contended by the learned Counsel that a perusal of Rule 12.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Vol. II (hereinafter referred to as, "the Rules"), shows that the emphasis is on his freedom or otherwise from conviction, meaning thereby, that the acquittal in criminal case will qualify him for appointment to the post of Constable since he was selected and found fit for the post after due selection process was conducted by the Respondents.

9. It has been further contended by the learned Counsel tha