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

2012 Supreme(All) 473

SUNIL HALI
HARENDRA PANWAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Vijay Gautam for the Petitioner; C.S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—In nut shell the case of the petitioner is that for making appointment of Constable an advertisement was issued calling application from the eligible candidates. In pursuance to the advertisement petitioner applied for the said post and after due completion of selection process petitioner was selected from District Etawah and was appointed as a Constable in the Police Department on 26.11.2005. After completion of the post recruitment training the petitioner was posted as Constable in District Etawah on 28.6.2006. Selection of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondent vide order dated 18.8.2007 passed by respondentNo. 2. Reasons for cancellation of the appointment are that the petitioner did not disclose that a criminal Case bearing Case Crime No. 32 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC at P.S. Kandhala, District Muzaffar Nagar was registered against him. This order is subject-matter of challenge before this Court.

2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that registration of an F.I.R. against the petitioner was not to his knowledge and he acquired the knowledge only after he had submitted his form/affidavit





















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