No mandamus can be issued for appointment when a candidate has not been acquitted in a criminal case, and a person with criminal antecedents is not suitable for appointment in the police force.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr.Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Amrito Das, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State on the question of admission.

2. The petitioner participated in recruitment process initiated for the post of Constable (GD & driver) and according to him, he has been selected after passing all tests including medical test, but respondent No.4/Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon has declined to issue order of appointment in favour of the petitioner on the ground that criminal case is pending against him.

3. It is admitted position on record that the petitioner has been convicted for offences under Sections 279 & 304A of the Indian Panel Code (hereinafter called as 'IPC') and Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1988') by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Takhatpur on 08.10.2021 and appeal against that order is pending consideration before the jurisdictional appellate Court and he has made a representation for issuance of appointment order in his favour.

4. Mr.Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that though the petitioner has been convicted for the aforesaid offences, yet his substantive jail sentence has been suspended and therefore, he is entitled to be appointed on the post of Constable (GD). He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to face consequence, if ultimately his conviction is maintained by the appellate Court. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others (2016) 8 SCC 471.

5. On the other hand, Mr.Amrito Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State, would oppose the writ petition and submit that since the petitioner has been convicted for offences under Sections 279 & 304A of the IPC and Section 3/181 of the Act of 1988 and jail sentence has been imposed for one year for offence under Section 304A of the IPC and six months for offence under Section 279 of the IPC and fine of Rs. 500/- has also been imposed under Section 3/181 of the Act of 1988 and appeal is pending consideration before the appellate Court. Therefore, no mandamus can be issued for issuance of appointment order/for consideration of the petitioner's case for appointment on the post of Constable (GD) and as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Admittedly and undisputedly, the petitioner has been selected on the post of Constable (GD), but he has been convicted for the aforesaid offences and jail sentence as well as fine sentence has been imposed upon him and his appeal is pending consideration before the appellate Court against the order of conviction and against jail sentence awarded to him, in the meanwhile, he has filed this writ petition seeking direction to respondent No.4 to consider his case for appointment on the post of Constable (GD) as he has already been selected for the said post.

7. The question that once the petitioner has been convicted for criminal offences and he has been awarded jail sentence and fine sentence also, whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to the authorities to consider his case for appointment on the post of Constable (GD).

8. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of West Bengal and others v. SK. Nazrul Islam (2011) 10 SCC 184 has clearly held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to appoint a particular person as a Constable so long as candidate has not been acquitted in the criminal case of the charges. It was observed as under:-

“5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we fail to appreciate how when a criminal case under Sections 148/323/380/448/427/506 IPC, against the respondent was pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, Howrah, any mandamus could have been issued by the High Court to the authorities to appoint the respondent as a Constable. Surely, the authorities entrusted with the responsibility of app