SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Raj) 1656

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
Sukh Lal Kalasna – Appellant
Versus
State and Rajasthan – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Dr. P.S. Bhati, Advocate.
For the Respondents:I.S. Pareek, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for appointment on the post of Constable (General Duty) in pursuance of advertisement dated 14.10.2010 and provide appointment with all consequential benefits.

3. As per facts of the case, in pursuance of advertisement issued by respondents for filing up the post of Constable (General Duty), petitioner being eligible applied for recruitment. In the selection process, petitioner was declared successful but respondents denied appointment to the petitioner for the reason that he has made concealment of fact with regard to registration of criminal case for the offence of Section 458, 323/34 IPC at Police station Bichhiwada.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that denial of appointment to the petitioner on the ground of concealment of fact with regard to criminal case for offences under Section 458, 323/34 IPC and subsequently on acquittal from the said case, respondents cannot deny appointment in view of recent judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Sandee


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top