ORDER :

1. The petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 27.5.2011 (Annexure P-12) by which respondent No.2 has held the petitioner to be unsuitable for the post of Constable (Telecommunication).

2. The petitioner applied for the post of Constable (Telecommunication), for which final select list was issued on 12.7.2010 and he was selected also, but in attestation form submitted on 12.8.2010 he disclosed the pendency of Criminal Case No.3/2011 for offences under Sections 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari, therefore, he was not appointed, but later on, he was acquitted on 14.3.2011 (Annexure P7) by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari in Criminal Case No.03/2011. The petitioner made an application/representation for issuance of appointment letter in his favour on 17.3.2011 on the ground of acquittal, which was considered by the appointing authority and by the impugned order dated 27.5.2011 (Annexure P12), it has been held that though the petitioner has been acquitted from criminal case, but considering his antecedents and character, he is unsuitable/unfit for government job and accordingly, his candidature was rejected, which has been called by way of this writ petition.

3. Return has been filed by the respondents/State opposing the writ petition stating inter-alia that even the petitioner did not disclose in his application form submitted before the authorities about the pendency of above-stated criminal case. Even otherwise, the decision taken by the appointing authority not to appoint the petitioner on the post of Constable (Telecommunication) is in accordance with law as the petitioner is found unsuitable looking to his criminal antecedents.

4. Mr.A.K.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that though on the date of filing the application the petitioner's criminal case was pending before the competent criminal Court, but later on, he has been acquitted on 14.3.2011, therefore, he is entitled for appointment on the said post and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, Mr.Sunil Otwani, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State, would submit that subsequent acquittal from criminal case would not entitle the petitioner for appointment as the appointing authority has considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and merely because he has acquitted, he cannot be held to be suitable for the post of Constable (Telecommunication).

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

7. True it is that while applying for the post of Constable (Telecommunication) the petitioner did not disclose his pending criminal case before the jurisdictional criminal Court for offences under Sections 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and he came to be selected, but while submitting attestation form he disclosed his pendency of criminal case, therefore, he was not appointed, but later on, upon acquittal from criminal case on 14.3.2011, he applied for appointment on the post of Constable (Telecommunication), which was rejected by order dated 27.5.2011 (Annexure P12) finding him unsuitable for the said post as he has been acquitted from criminal case only on the basis of extending benefit of doubt.

8. The question as to whether a person who was suffering from criminal case on the date of selection and thereafter he has been acquitted subsequently is entitled to be appointed is no longer resintregra and stands authoritatively decided by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions. Few of them may be noticed profitably.

9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 has held in para 38.5 that even in cases where a truthful disclosure abo