A candidate who has disclosed a pending criminal case against him in the verification roll is not suitable for appointment as a constable in the Kolkata Police.

Nishita Mhatre, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1219 of 2011 the petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner applied for the post of Police Constable in the Kolkata Police pursuant to an advertisement issued in the newspaper. He was provisionally selected on 19th March 2010 and was then directed to appear for the medical test before the Chief Medical Officer. He passed the medical examination successfully on 25th March 2010. Thereafter on 30th March 2010 the petitioner submitted the Verification Roll in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Burdwan. However, the petitioner did not receive any intimation from the authorities indicating that he was selected for the post. He, therefore, submitted a representation on 10 th May 2010 to the Superintendent of Police, Burdwan calling upon him to issue an appointment letter in his favour. Similar representations were made by the petitioner to various other authorities. However, there was no response to these representations. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 1219 of 2011. That application was dismissed by the Chairman of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal sitting singly. The petitioner then filed W.P.S.T. No. 122 of 2012 challenging the order of the Tribunal. That petition was disposed of by us on 27th April 2012 by remanding the Original Application to the Tribunal for hearing it afresh as the members of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal have no jurisdiction to decide matters sitting singly.

3. The Tribunal has thereafter heard the matter afresh on 11th December 2012 and dismissed the application. The Tribunal found that the petitioner was not suitable for being appointed as a constable in the Kolkata Police by referring various judgements of the Supreme Court.

4. From the material on record it is evident that the petitioner’s case for appointment has not been considered because in the verification roll he had stated that a criminal case was pending against him. The petitioner had disclosed that a charge-sheet had been filed against him in P.S. Case No. 35 of 2009 on 28th March 2009 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He had also mentioned that this case had been registered against him due to the political vendetta and he was released on bail.

5. Mr. Chakraborty, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had disclosed the fact that he was involved in criminal proceedings and was out on bail. He pointed out that the criminal cases arose because of political vendetta. He urged, therefore, that the disclosure of these facts should not act as an impediment in appointing the petitioner as a constable. The learned Counsel placed reliance on our judgement in the case of Alok Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal and Anr., W.P.S.T. No. 5 of 2012 decided on 1st March 2012.

5. In the case of Alok Sarkar,(supra) the Division Bench of this Court (to which one of us, Mhatre J, was a party) considered whether a person who was charged with having committed theft of bananas and bamboos could be recruited to the post of Sweeper in the Police Department. After considering various judgments of the Supreme Court, which we will presently advert to, the Court was of the view that considering the nature of the offence and the post to which the candidate wanted to be appointed it was a fit case where the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police & Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar reported in (2011) 3 W BLR (SC) 624 should be followed. Accordingly the Court directed the Government to consider the Petitioner in that case for appointment.

6. In the case of Commissioner of Police & Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar (supra) the Supreme Court considered a case of a person who had been selected for the post of temporary Head Constable. He had not disclosed in his application form that he was prosecuted