JUDGMENT :

Prakash Padia, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following prayers :

(A) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing impugned discharge letter dated 15.3.2017 (Annexure 4) of this petition

(B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent(s) to reinstate the petitioner into services, with all consequential benefits.

3. Facts in brief as contained in the petition are that an advertisement being Advertisement No. 1/2011 was issued by the respondent No. 3 for recruitment on the post of Constable (G.D.) in Railway Protection Special Force. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application form and he received Admit Card for appearing in the said examination. The petitioner duly appeared in the examination and qualified the same. Subsequently, the petitioner received appointment letter wherein he was directed to join his training at Panjab Police Taining Center Jahankalan on 1.11.2014. During the period of training, the Police Verification Report was sought from the District Magistrate Pratapgarh regarding pendency of any criminal case against the petitioner. A report was submitted in this regard stating therein that Case Crime No. 35 of 2011 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner on 3.5.2011 at Jethwara Police Station, Pratapgarh in which local police has taken action under Section 110(G) of Cr.P.C. but the petitioner did not disclose the aforesaid information in Column No. 12 of the attestation form, hence his selection is liable to be cancelled. After the aforesaid report, the petitioner was discharged from his training and in this regard a letter was served upon the petitioner on 27.4.2015. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the petitioner filed a petition before this Court being Writ A No. 45626 of 2015 (Manendra Singh and another v. Union of India and others) and the aforesaid writ petition was finally decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgement and order dated 6.12.2016. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner was called for personal hearing on 11.1.2017 and after hearing the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 passed the order dated 15.3.2017 cancelling the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of intentional suppression of the material fact while filling up his attestation form. Aggrieved against the order dated 15.3.2017, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that insofar as Case Crime No. 35 of 2011 under Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C. is concerned, the petitioner has absolutely no information. It is further stated in the writ petition that neither any information in this regard was ever served upon the petitioner nor he was ever charge-sheeted in the aforesaid case. It is stated in paragraph 14 of the writ petition that the order passed by respondent No. 4 dated 15.3.2017 is hit by the equality clause enshrined in the Constitution of India since on similar facts, candidatures of various candidates were found to be fit and they were reinstated. The names of candidates are Subhash Kumar, Bittu Jaiswal, Mehdi Hasan and Kuldeep Kumar and the orders passed for reinstatement of them were appended as Annexures 5, 5A, 5B and 5C to the writ petition respectively. It is argued that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected in view of the fact that correct facts were not disclosed by the petitioner in Column 12 of the Attestation Form. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no cloumn in the Attestation Form regarding declaration of only F.I.R. and as such there is no suppression of material facts, therefore, it is wrong to say that any fact whatsoever has been suppressed by the petitioner. It is further argued that in identical circumstance, only on the basis of lodging of F.I.R., candidatures of vario