Point of Law : High Court, as a Court of record, has a duty to itself to keep all the records correctly and in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Tejasvi Misra, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner and Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. This review application has been filed by the applicant-petitioner against the judgment and order dated 21.01.2019 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Verma in Writ - A No. 38386 of 2017 (Anil Kumar vs. Union of India and 4 Others) alongwith an application for condoning the delay in filing of the review application. The review application has been placed before the regular Bench, dealing with the matter after the transfer of Hon'ble Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Verma) to another High Court as per the order of Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice dated 13.11.2018, therefore, the matter is being heard by this Bench, which is the regular Bench having jurisdiction to hear this matter.

3. The registry has reported the review application to be beyond time by 1037 days on the date of its presentation, i.e. 20.02.2019. The cause shown in the delay condonation application supported with affidavit is sufficient.

4. Application allowed. Delay condoned.

5. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petition bearing Writ-A No. 38382 of 2017 (Dharmendra Kumar Vs. the Union of India and Others) was filed with a prayer to quash the impugned orders dated 29.07.2015 and 11.05.2017 passed by respondent no.4 and a further prayer was made to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the service of petitioner and pay salary alongwith other benefits also. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner applied for the post of Constable in RPF pursuant to the advertisement No.1 of 2011 dated 23.02.2011 issued by respondent no.5, i.e. the Chief Secretary Commissioner, RPF, Northestern Railways (NER), Gorakhpur. The selection process for Constable GD Posts, against the aforesaid advertisement, consisted of written examination, physical examinations and thereafter, viva and document verification followed by medical examinations. The petitioner being eligible filled up the application form and appeared in the written examination as held pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. The petitioner qualified the written examination and was called for physical efficiency test, which was held on 09.03.2014 at District-Gorakhpur. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for document verification and medical examination on 05.05.2014 as he had qualified in the written examination as well as physical eligibility test. Thereafter, as the petitioner qualified all the examinations as required, his role number was mentioned in the select list of finally selected candidate. In paragraph no.12 of the attestation form, he was required to fill up certain details. The petitioner filled up the attestation form on 12.05.2014 but he did not disclose about the criminal case, which was lodged against him alongwith three other persons being Case Crime No.4 of 2008, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, at P.S.-Sujanganj, District-Jaunpur. As the petitioner was residing at District-Allahabad for pursuing his studies as well as appearing in competitive exams, he had no knowledge of the aforesaid criminal case and even otherwise, the Investigating Officer has told his father that investigation of the aforesaid case has concluded and petitioner's name has been dropped.

6. The petitioner received allotment letter from the authorities concerned in the month of October, 2014, by which the petitioner was allotted the post of Constable in RPSF and was sent for basic training at RPF training Centre in CISF Training Centre, Bhillai Utai Durg, Chhatisgarh.

7. The petitioner has joined his training on 01.11.2014 and while he was under training, he received letter dated 29.07.2015 and 11.05.2017 issued by respondent no.4, in which it was stated that during the verification, it was found that one criminal case being Case Crime No. 04 of 2008, U/s 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, at P.S. Sujanpur, District-Jaunpur was lodged against the petitioner, disc