PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Since a common question of law arises for consideration in the three above captioned writ petitions, they are being decided by a common judgment.

3. Let us note the facts.

4. Rahul Yadav, the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.8094/2010 applied in response to an advertisement issued by the Staff Selection Commission for appointment of Sub-Inspector through the CPO Examination, to be held in the year 2008. He successfully cleared the selection process and on 29.03.2010 a letter provisionally offering appointment was issued to him for being appointed as Sub-Inspector under CISF. On 22.06.2010 the provisional offer of appointment dated 29.03.2010 was withdrawn, stating that on scrutiny of documents produced by him, he was found not suitable to be appointed as Sub-Inspector in CISF. Though not explicitly stated in the letter, the counter affidavit filed by the respondents evidences the reason; being his involvement for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 323/325/504/506/34 IPC as per FIR No.213/2004.

5. It may be noted that Rahul Yadav was aged 18 years when the alleged incident in which he was stated to have been involved took place on 20.06.2005 and it may be additionally noted that he was acquitted of the said charge. It may further be noted that the complainant was the owner of the neighbouring agricultural lands and had named the petitioner, his brother and his mother as the accused.

6. We may note that it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not come to correct information while filling up the forms. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not disclosed his being an accused in the afore-noted FIR and his being acquitted of the offences charged of.

7. Anil Yadav, the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.6170/2010 was likewise issued a letter provisionally offering appointment as a Sub-Inspector by CISF. The letter is dated 25.03.2010 which was withdrawn vide letter dated 22.06.2010. As in the case of Rahul Yadav, it is not the case of the respondents that Anil Yadav had suppressed information of his being an accused for having committed offences punishable under Sections 148/149/323/341/506/34 IPC as per FIR No.389/2006. It may be noted that the alleged incident took place on 02.09.2006 when Anil Yadav was aged 20 years. It may further be noted that Rahul Yadav has been acquitted.

8. The 3rd writ petitioner Parveen Kumar was likewise issued a letter of provisional offer for the post of Sub-Inspector by CISF on 09.11.2010. The same has not been formally withdrawn in terms of a written communication served upon the petitioner, but he has been orally told not to join. As per the counter affidavit the reason is FIR No.310/2006 for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 323/324/34 IPC and even he stands acquitted. It may be noted that the date of the stated incident is 18.07.2006 when Praveen Kumar was aged only 18 years.

9. It is thus apparent that two out of the three writ petitioners were aged 18 years when the alleged incidents took place and the third was aged 20 years. What we want to convey is that though they were major, all petitioners were not sufficiently matured enough. We may highlight at this stage that all the writ petitioners come from a rural background.

10. Justifying withdrawing letters offering appointment, the respondent rely upon a circular dated 31.03.2010 as per which the Ministry of Home Affairs has informed CISF to not allow any candidate found involved in any criminal case to join without instructions of the ‘OFFICE OF THE TRAINING SECTOR NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY ACADEMY, CISF’.

11. It is not pleaded by the respondents that cases of the petitioners were referred to the office of the Training Sector, National Industrial Security Academy.

12. Now, the circular dated 31.03.2010 does not prohibit appointment merely because, sentence in the past, a candidate was f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document