V.K. JAIN, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby OA No. 97/2010 filed by the petitioner, was dismissed. The brief facts giving rise to filing of this petition are as follows:

An advertisement was issued by Delhi Police in the year 2007 for filling up 2536 vacancies in the cadre of Constable (Executive) Male. The petitioner, who applied for the said post was successful in Physical Endurance and Measurement Test, written test and interview and was declared as provisionally selected subject to verification of character and antecedents. In his application form, the petitioner had disclosed that he had been involved in a criminal case registered vide FIR No. 32, dated 07.03.2006. Yet another FIR No. 149 dated 04.09.2007 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Farukh Nagar, Gurgaon on 04.09.2007. Registration of both the criminal cases was disclosed by the petitioner in the Attestation Form filled up by him on 03.11.2007. Since both the criminal cases registered against the petitioner were pending trial, his appointment to the post of Constable (Executive) Male was kept in abeyance. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted in both the criminal cases and accordingly he, by an application dated 18.09.2008, requested that he may be allowed to join Delhi Police as Constable (Executive). The Screening Committee of Delhi Police noticing the involvement of the petitioner in the said criminal cases found him unsuitable for appointment, despite the fact that he had been acquitted in both the cases. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing cancellation of his candidature and the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled on 23.12.2008. OA No. 483/2009 was filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order passed by the respondents. The Tribunal, vide order dated 11.08.2009, quashed the said order and remanded the matter to the respondents to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notice and to then pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected by a speaking order dated 15.10.2009. The order dated 15.10.2009 was challenged vide OA No. 97/2010 which came to be dismissed by the Tribunal on 31.05.2011.

2. It is an admitted position that the involvement in the criminal cases was duly disclosed by the petitioner in the Application Form as well as the Attestation Form. Therefore, this is not a case of a person trying to obtain appointment to a public office by playing a fraud or by concealing a material fact. This is also an admitted case before us that neither the advertisement published in the newspapers nor the terms and conditions on which appointments were sought to be made by the respondents, disqualified a person involved in a criminal case, from applying or being appointed to the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police. Hence, it cannot be said that merely on account of his involvement in the criminal cases and despite acquittal in those cases the petitioner was per se ineligible for appointment to the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police.

3. The minutes of the Screening Committee, whereby the petitioner was held unsuitable for employment in Delhi Police, inter alia, read as under:-

“The Committee under the chairmanship of Shri Qamar Ahmed, Joint CP/Hqrs. including Shri L. C. Jain, LA to CP/Delhi as members met on 06.11.2008 to examine the suitability of candidate Devender Singh Yadav (Roll No.900503) in detail keeping the nature of his involvement, gravity of offence, judgment of the Court and also the grounds of acquittal Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 04.10.1996 in Civil Appeal No.13231 of 1996 (arising out of SLP (C) No.5340 of 1996 DAD vs. Sush