Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT, J.
Rajiv Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And Another - Respondents
WRIT - A No. 53425 of 2007
Decided On : 11-03-2019
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Petitioner appointed as Constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary pursuant to his selection in recruitment process – Appointment of petitioner was cancelled by order passed by Commandant Battalion – Praying for consequential relief of backwages and payment of salary – Appeal – Held, Court settlement between parties in this matter after judgment was reserved – Therefore, Court have not taken into consideration such plea –Documentary evidence on record produced by parties required us to reject subsequent plea made by respondent in this case – Court aside finding of High Court in impugned judgment and hold that appellant is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages from date of termination of his service till date of his reinstatement and other consequential benefits which accrue to him by virtue of his employment with the respondent Company – Petitioner was prevented from discharging his duties as Constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary solely on account of arbitrary action on part of respondents and their abject failure to implement law and the Constitution –Entitlement of petitioner for backwages is also independently supported by an additional factor – There is a compensatory element in grant of relief of backwages – There was a complete systemic failure – All organs of the Constitutional governance had failed to protect the rights of petitioner and implement law and violated child rights regime – Grant of full backwages would redeem cause of justice and uphold rule of law – Appeals are allowed. (Para 145, 175 and 176)
Introduction:
1. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary on 26.08.2006, pursuant to his selection in the recruitment process. The appointment of the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 23.08.2007 passed by the Commandant 15th Battalion, P.A.C./Incharge Commandant 43rd Battalian, P.A.C., Etah.
2. The petitioner has assailed the order of cancellation of his appointment dated 23.08.2007 passed by the Commandant 15th Battalion, P.A.C. Etah in the instant writ petition. He has also prayed for consequential relief of backwages and payment of his salary as and when it becomes due.
Submissions:
3. Sri Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the contents of the declaration made by the petitioner on affidavit at the time of his recruitment are not disputed. He does not contest the fact that the petitioner had faced criminal prosecution before the offending declaration was made. The declaration in one sense was incorrect. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that looking to the declaration at its face value to test the validity of the candidature of the petitioner would be a very superficial way looking at the controversy. The controversy was approached in this simplistic fashion by the authorities while passing the impugned order. Consequently, the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the rights of the petitioner vested by the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 have been violated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at all relevant points in time when the criminal case was instituted, the petitioner was minor of 10 years of age.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner then called attention to provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and provisions of the Constitution of India. He cited a number of judicial authorities in support of this case.
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that once it is admitted that the petitioner had made a false declaration regarding the pending criminal case at the time of his employment, law has to follow its course. The appointment was rightly invalidated.
Facts:
7. The facts in outline which are established beyond the pale of dispute shall now be stated.
8. The petitioner was named as an accused in a F.I.R. lodged on 08.10.1994 as Case Crime No. 333 of 1994 under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act, at Police Station Sikandrarao, District Hathras. A chargesheet was filed against the petitioner on 04.11.1994 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act. The petitioner was prosecuted in criminal case No. 333 of 1994 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act before the trial court. The petitioner was acquitted by the trial court by judgment and order entered on 23.12.2002.
9. The date of birth of the petitioner is 04.03.1984. At the time of registration of the F.I.R. against the petitioner and on the date of submission of the chargesheet against him, the petitioner was 10 years old. The petitioner was prosecuted under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1) (10) of the SC/ST Act before the trial court, as a minor child who was 10 years of age.
10. Upon attaining majority the petitioner made a career choice and applied for appointment as a constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary.
11. The petitioner qualified the recruitment test for appointment as a constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary on 26.08.2006.
12. The petitioner at the time of his enrollment in the Provincial Armed Constabulary made the following declarations:
^^3- ;g dh esjs fo:) dksbZ vkijkf/kd vfHk;ksx u rks iathd`r gS vkSj u dHkh iathd`r gqvk gSA 4- ;g dh dHkh esjk pkyku fdlh Hkh
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
