Employment eligibility should be evaluated based on rules in place during application, not amended rules enacted post-selection process.

JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure P-16) and 08.02.2017 (Annexure P-13) whereby he has been denied post of Constable.

2. The petitioner pursuant to Advertisement dated 02.08.2008, filed application under SC Category on 05.09.2008. At the time of filing of application, no criminal case was pending against him. He came to be implicated in FIR No.125 dated 23.05.2010 registered under Sections 304 /34 of IPC at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, District Ambala. The petitioner cleared written and physical test. The physical test was conducted on 02.07.2010 and interview was conducted on 15.07.2010. The list of selected candidates was released on 30.01.2012. The name of petitioner figured in the list of selected candidates. The petitioner submitted attestation form on 19.03.2012. In the said form, he did not disclose aforesaid FIR registered against him. The Police after completing investigation, filed cancellation report on 30.04.2012. The complainant approached this Court by way of CRM-M-24161-2010 seeking fair investigation of aforesaid FIR. This Court vide order dated 12.08.2013 referred the matter to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which registered fresh FIR and filed its report before CBI Judge, Panchkula. The trial Court framed charges against petitioner on 21.07.2016. The petitioner came to be acquitted vide judgment dated 06.12.2022. The respondent rejected claim of petitioner vide order dated 08.02.2017 on the ground that he is facing charges and as per Rule 12.18 (3) (b) of PUNJAB POLICE RULES , 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (in short ‘PPR’) appointment letter cannot be issued to him. The petitioner after his acquittal again approached authorities and Director General of Police (DGP) vide impugned order dated 11.04.2023 rejected his claim on the ground that selection process completed in 2013 and at this stage petitioner cannot be considered for the post. He has been acquitted by CBI Judge, Panchkula, however, it does not create any right in his favour.

3. Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate submits that petitioner’s claim was rejected invoking Rule 12.18 (3) (b) of PPR. The said Rule came into force w.e.f. 18.06.2015 whereas selection process completed in 2013, thus, said Rule was wrongly invoked. The petitioner at the time of filing application form was not facing criminal proceedings. The Investigating Officer in 2010 itself filed affidavit before this Court to the effect that petitioner is not guilty.

4. Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, DAG, Haryana submits that State cannot wait for indefinite period. It was petitioner who was at fault. He was facing criminal proceedings. Charges were framed against him, thus, he was not eligible for the post of Constable. Rule 12.18 (3) (b) of PPR was rightly invoked because at the time of passing impugned order, said Rule had come into force.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. From the perusal of record, it is evident that respondent has rejected claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay and Rule 12.18 (3) (b) of PPR. First time petitioner was denied appointment letter on the ground of Rule 12.18 (3)(b) of PPR. The order dated 08.02.2017 passed by respondent read as:

“No.____/OSI, dated____/____/2017(.) Regarding Decision of Representation.

In compliance of the order dated 21.07.2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 13420 of 2014, it i