Rajindar Sachar, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed seeking a mandamus and makes a grievance that the petitioner who took the Delhi Administration Examination, 1981, being combined competitive examination held every year by the Staff Selection Commission for the selection and direct recruitment of the candidates for the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police and who was selected for the same is being denied the appointment.

( 2 ) THE petitioner took the examination on 13th and 14th of January 1981. Thereafter, the petitioner passed through the various physical test, medical test etc. It is common case that after conducting the personality test the Staff Selection Commission recommended the names of 116 candidates including the petitioner for the appointment for the post of Sub Inspector (Executive ). The petitioner naturally expected that he would be called and given the appointment along with the others in 1981. But that was not to be. The petitioner would have been put in great financial straits and almost driven to starvation but for the fortunate fact that the petitioner is employed as Lower Division Clerk in the Armed Forces Head Quarters, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, since February 1979 in regular appointment.

( 3 ) THE petitioner went on desperately asking the Delhi Administration ever since as for the reasons for not selecting him and finding no alternative the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed it is admitted that the petitioner was recommended by the Staff Selection Commission. It is also admitted that the petitioner passed through the various tests. The justification for not giving him the appointment stated to be is that on checking the attestation form, it has transpired that the petitioner s record was not unblemished and he had criminal bistory and that he was also detained in MISA and DIR. In support of this plea six instances are mentioned, where the petitioner was arrested on offences allegedly under Sections 108/151cr. P. C. , 147/148 Indian Penal Code. , 110 Cr. P. C. and also arrested under Section 9 of MISA dated 9-9-1975 and also under Section 43 (33) under DIR. In the same breath, however, it is immediately conceded that the petitioner was acquitted by the court in all the criminal cases and that the order of detention, under MISA, DIR was also revoked by the Administration. But yet it is still insisted with tengue in cheek and one fails to understand with what logic that notwithstanding the acquittals but keeping in view the past criminal history of the petitioner the offer of appointment was withheld in view of the fact that the police department is a sensitive department. The matter is said to have been referred to Delhi Admiaistration on 19-8-1981, which apparently must have found itself incompetent to take any decision because it has in its term referred the same to Government of India, by letter dated 26-2-1982, the latter apparently not deeming to urgent enough has still not taken any decision. That in short is the justification for denying petitioner s fundamental right of a public employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner a categorical stand has been taken that the cases listed at item Nos. (i) and (iv) under Sections 108/151 and 1 10 Criminal Procedure Code. never took place. No material has been placed before us by respondent to show that this assertion by the petitioner is wrong. As regards the other cases the respondent has already admitted that they were either withdrawn by the public prosecutor and even detention order was revoked on 26-3-1976.

( 5 ) MR. Jaitley, the learned counsel for the petitioner, makes a grievance that it is unfair to have made only a reference to the F. I. R. without bringing before this Court the police report and the F. I. R. because according to him had that been done, it would have shown that at the most these cases related

Click Here to Read the rest of this document