The judgment established that the statutory rules governing appointment procedures must be followed strictly, and the acquittal of a candidate after the stage of consideration does not override the bar on considering candidates facing trial for serious offences.

JUDGMENT :

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA J.

1. Petitioner who was duly selected for the post of Constable, (General Duty) in the Haryana Police Department, has questioned the validity of order dated 29.08.2020 (Annexure P-9) whereby offer of appointment to the post has been declined.

2. Facts of the case are in a very narrow compass.

3. Respondents issued advertisement dated 16.04.2018 advertising 5000 posts of Male Constables (General Duty). Out of these 900 posts were reserved for the SC Category. Petitioner who belongs to the SC Category applied for the post and subjected himself to a process of selection which also included a written examination. Final merit was determined and result was declared on 28.02.2019. Petitioner secured 52.02 marks whereas the last candidate pertaining to SC Category who has been duly selected and appointed obtained a lower merit position i.e. 51.40 marks.

4. It so transpires that at the stage of submitting his application for the post, petitioner had disclosed that he was involved in FIR No.150 dated 30.03.2015 under Sections 323, 452, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Sector 55, Faridabad.

5. Petitioner having faced trial was acquitted by the Criminal Court vide judgment dated 06.09.2019 (Annexure P-7). Claim of the petitioner seeking appointment was rejected earlier in point of time vide order dated 01.07.2020. At that stage petitioner filed CWP No.11548 of 2020 assailing the order of rejection on the ground that the same had been passed only for two reasons i.e. a criminal case against the petitioner was still pending and that the petitioner had concealed the fact as regards his arrest. Alongwith such petition, petitioner had attached the judgment of acquittal as also copy of order dated 26.05.2015 vide which petitioner had been granted concession of pre-arrest bail and as such had never been arrested. CWP No. 11548 of 2020 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.08.2020 (Annexure P-8). The order of rejection dated 01.07.2020 was set aside and directions were issued to the respondent authorities to re-consider the claim of the petitioner. It is thereafter that the order dated 29.08.2020 (Annexure P-9) has been passed and which has led to the filing of the instant petition.

6. Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner would argue that in pursuance to a regular selection process, the petitioner was duly selected and as such merely on the basis that the petitioner stood trial in a criminal case, he cannot be deprived of his vested right of appointment to the post. Another limb of the argument raised is that at the stage of submitting application for the post, the criminal case was pending against the petitioner and the trial has culminated in his acquittal. Denial of appointment to the petitioner under such circumstances is contended to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Heavy reliance has been placed upon judgment of the Apex Court in Joginder Singh Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others 2015 (1) SCT 87. Reliance has also been placed upon judgment of this Court in CWP No.4568 of 2013 titled as Pawan Kumar versus State of Haryana and anothers decided on 08.04.2015 and such judgment having been affirmed by the Letters Patent Bench vide judgment dated 26.05.2016 in LPA No.1059 of 2015 (State of Haryana and others Vs. Pawan Kumar). It has also been contended that the petitioner was not guilty of any concealment of facts.

7. Petitioner's acquittal by extending benefit of doubt cannot be held against the petitioner so as to deny him appointment to the post of Constable inspite of having been declared successful in a regular selection process.

8. Per contra learned State counsel would submit that even though name of the petitioner figured in the list of provisionally selected candidates but such selection was subjected to verification of character/antecedents. Case of the petitioner was sent to the Commiss