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

2012 Supreme(J&K) 690

JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Naranjan Singh -Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. -Resopndent
SWF No. 2253/2009, CMP No. 2989/2009
Decided On : 27-12-2012

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. S.K. Shukla, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Gagan Basotra, Sr. AAG, Advocate for the Respondents.

Acquittal in a criminal case is necessary for suitability for appointment as a constable.

Headnote:

Constable - Appointment Issue - NDPS Act, IPC - Summary: The court considered the case of a petitioner who was denied appointment as a constable due to his alleged involvement in a criminal case under the NDPS Act. The court referred to legal provisions and interpretations from various judgments, including the Supreme Court, emphasizing that acquittal in a criminal case is necessary for suitability for appointment as a constable. The court quashed the order denying appointment and directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's case for appointment.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner applied for the post of Constable but was denied appointment due to his alleged involvement in a criminal case under the NDPS Act. He was acquitted in the criminal proceedings, but the appointment order was withheld.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner, being acquitted of the charges, was entitled to the relief sought for by him and directed the authorities to consider his case for appointment.

Issues: The core question was whether the petitioner, acquitted in the criminal case, was entitled to appointment and had the right to join the post of Constable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles established in various judgments, emphasizing that acquittal in a criminal case is necessary for suitability for appointment as a constable.

Final Decision: The court quashed the order denying appointment and directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's case for appointment.

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.

2. I have already dealt with a similar controversy at Srinagar in a writ petition titled Jahangir Ahmad Khanday v. State of J&K and others, 2012 (4) JKJ HC-596 being writ petition SWP No. 1811/2011, by a reasoned judgment dated 31.08.2012, followed by another judgement at Jammu in case titled Zulfakar Ahmad v. State and others (SWP No. 232/2010), Decided on 04.10.2012, holding that the writ petitions merit acceptance.

3. The brief facts of the case at hand are that advertisement notice was issued by the respondents inviting applications for selection/appointment against the post of Constables in the Jammu & Kashmir Executive Police in the Districts of Udhampur and Reasi. The petitioner, being eligible, applied along with all other candidates and on completion of the selection process, he came to be selected figuring at S. No. 49 in the select list.

4. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that since he was allegedly involved in a criminal case, therefore, the respondents did not issue the formal appointment order in his favour and he was not allowed to join against the said post. The reason of not allowing the petitioner to join is the receipt of adverse verification report, which revealed the petitioner's involvement in FIR No. 43/2006 at Police Station, Kud, under section 8/20 NDPS Act. It is submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the said FIR are false and frivolous and that the case is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur and no witness has deposed against the petitioner so far, which substantiates that the allegations leveled against him are false and frivolous. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the said FIR and the offences alleged against the petitioner cannot be made a ground for refusal/denial of the appointment to the petitioner.

5. Writ petition came up for consideration from time to time and in terms of order dated 01.02.2012, respondents were directed to consider and reexamine the claim of the petitioner for appointment in view of his acquittal in the criminal proceedings.

6. Respondents have filed the reply and contested the averments made in the writ petition and averred that the petitioner was found involved in the FIR supra and that is the reason for not issuing appointment order in favour of the petitioner.

7. Mr. S. K. Shukla, learned appearing counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur, whereby the petitioner stands acquitted in the FIR, which is subject matter of the whole controversy. It is also submitted at the Bar by learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Director General of Police has passed an order bearing No. 3017 of 2012 dated 03.09.2012. whereby the selection of the petitioner has been cancelled.

8. The core question involved in the writ petition is as to whether the respon#31;dents can pass the order aforementioned during the pendency of the lis and as to whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment and has right to be allowed to join in view of the subsequent development viz., acquittal in the FIR supra. Admittedly, the appointment order was withheld and the petitioner was not allowed to join because of his involvement in the said FIR. Now that the trial has come to an end and the petitioner stands acquitted of the charges leveled against him, he is entitled to the relief sought for by him.

9. The apex Court recently in a judgment titled State of West Bengal & ors. v. S. Nazrul Islam reported in 2011 AIR SCW 6558 has held that if a Constable is involved in any criminal offence, he cannot possibly be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of Constable, till he is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. It is relevant to extract paragraph 5 of the judgement, which reads as under:

"5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we fa













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
whatsapp-icon Back to top