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 On 22.06.2010 the provisional offer of appointment dated 29.03.2010 was withdrawn, stating that on scrutiny of documents produced by him, he was found not suitable to be appointed as Sub-Inspector in CISF.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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document