VEENA BIRBAL, J.

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 11.08.2010 passed in R.A. No. 209/2010 and order dated 04.05.2010 passed in O.A. No. 2497/2009 both passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal?) whereby the prayer of the petitioner for cancellation of order dated 04.08.2009 issued by the respondents cancelling the candidature of the petitioner for recruitment to the post of Constable Male (Executive) in Delhi Police has been rejected.

2. In the year 2008, an advertisement was issued by the respondents wherein applications were invited for recruitment to the post of Constable Male (Executive) in Delhi Police. Petitioner applied for recruitment to the said post under ST category. He was put through physical endurance and measurement test, written test, interview. Petitioner was declared provisionally selected against Roll No. 515945, subject to verification of character and antecedents, final checking of documents and medical fitness. On 15.07.2009, petitioner received a show cause notice from respondents wherein it is stated that on receipt of his character and antecedents report from DCP/Special Branch, Delhi it is revealed that a criminal case FIR No. 45, dated 04.05.2007 u/s 143/341/323/354-IPC, P.S. Thana Gazi, District Alwar (Rajasthan) was registered against him. It is further stated that the said criminal case was decided by the aforesaid Court on 01.06.2009 wherein petitioner and co-accused persons were convicted for the offence u/s 143 IPC and were given benefit u/s 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 after admonishing. For the offence u/s 323, 341, 354 and 451 IPC, they were acquitted as the matter was compromised. It was also stated in the show cause notice that the petitioner was involved in the case and had an active role as such was unfit for Delhi Police and was asked to give reply to show cause as to why his candidature for the post of Constable Male (Executive) in Delhi Police be not cancelled. Petitioner gave a reply on 28.07.2009 stating that there are judicial directions of the court that conviction would have no adverse effect on petitioner as well as one Shri Gopi Ram in future in their Government services or otherwise. In view of above directions, the Government service of petitioner would not be affected. The reply of the petitioner was not found convincing by respondents as such vide order dated 04.08.2009 the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Constable Male (Executive) in Delhi Police was cancelled.

3. Aggrieved with the same, petitioner filed an O.A. No. 2497/2009 before the Tribunal wherein petitioner had alleged that at the time of filling up of the attestation form, petitioner had disclosed his involvement in the criminal case. Petitioner pointed out about the directions of criminal court which are stated above and contended that respondents are not justified in cancelling his candidature.

4. The Tribunal relying on the judgment of this court in Satraj Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.; 2007 IX AD (DELHI) 241 did not interfere with the order of the respondents dated 4.8.2009 and also observed that the said order had been passed after observing the principles of natural justice. Aggrieved with the same, the present petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the candidature of the petitioner has been wrongly cancelled on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case. It is contended that vide judgment dated 1st June, 2009 of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Thana Gazi, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan), the petitioner was acquitted for the offences under section 323/341, 354 and 451 IPC and as regards conviction under Section 143 IPC is concerned, petitioner was given benefit under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act and there is a direction of the Court that it will not affect the future Go