The judgment emphasizes the need to consider the nature of charges and the suitability of a candidate for appointment, especially in cases involving minor indiscretions by young individuals.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muzaffar Hussain Attar-Judge

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner responded to the Advertisement Notice issued by the respondents for being selected and appointed on the post of Follower (Cook) in IRP. The petitioner along with other eligible candidates were subjected to the selection process. The petitioner on the basis of the merit and suitability was selected for being appointed as Follower (Cook) which select list was published in a daily English newspaper Daily Excelsior in its issue dated 29.12.2008. The petitioner was shown to have been selected as Follower (Cook) in general category and was adjusted in 13 Bn IRP. It appears that the petitioner was denied appointment in view of the registration of FIR no.46/2007 under sections 451/147 RPC. The petitioner being aggrieved of the inaction of the respondents to appoint him filed writ petition on hand claiming that respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to join on the post of Follower (Cook) with a further prayer that action of the respondents which prevented him to join on the said post be declared as ultra vires, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional.

3. On notice, reply has been filed by the respondents in which it is stated that it was not deemed proper and desirable to appoint the petitioner on the post of Follower (Cook) in view of verification report about his character and antecedents.

4. The petitioner has filed CMP no. 3168/2011 with the prayer that judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class City Judge, Jammu whereunder accused including the petitioner in FIR no. 46/2007 have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them be taken on record. Application is allowed and copy of the judgement dated 26.09.2011 is taken on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Commissioner of Police and others, appellants v. Sandeep Kumar, respondents reported in 2011 (4) SCC 644 and judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled Parvesh v. State of Harayana and others reported in 2009 (4) RCR (Cri) and submitted that in almost identical circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme Court and Punjab and Harayana High Court held that the persons who was selected and appointed on the post should not be denied the appointment for having committing indiscreet act at a particular period of time. Learned counsel further submitted that case of the petitioner is further strengthened for the reasons that he has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to the Division Bench judgment of this court in case titled Fayaz Ahmed Panchoo v. State and others reported in 2003 (1) KLJ 45 and also judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and others v. Sushil Kumar reported in 1996 (1) SCC 605 and submitted that appointing authority is within its right to deny the appointment to the petitioner on the basis of verification of character and antecedents. True it is that appointing authority has discretion to refuse the appointment to the selected candidate in case it is shown that character and antecedents of such candidates were of such nature which would not make him fit for appointment. The employer, however, cannot have the indefensible and unguided power to refuse appointment to the selected candidate who has been found fit and suitable by the properly constituted Selection Committee for the post of Follower (Cook).

7. Right to seek appointment for being selected and appointed on a public post is guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. When a person is adjudged suitable by the duly constituted Committee for being appointed on a post, then there has to be a strong reason for denying appointment to him. In the present case, there has not been any serious charge levelled ag