JUDGMENT :

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.

1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and Sri Satish Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The petitioner-appellant has filed the present special appeal praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 22.07.2022 in Writ Appeal No. 679 of 2020 (Lalit Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others) passed by the learned Single Judge and to allow the writ petition.

3. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid Writ Appeal No. 679 of 2020 praying for the following relief:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure No. 6 to this writ petition) as well as order dated 06.11.2019 passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure no. 12 to this writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer.”

Facts of the Present Case:

4. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that the petitioner-appellant was already working as Upper Divisional Clerk in the office of the Director General (Meteorology), Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India, New Delhi. An advertisement inviting applications for recruitment on the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer was issued. The appellant-petitioner applied for the aforesaid post after obtaining permission from his aforesaid parent department to appear in the aforesaid selection process. The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad issued provisional admit card to the petitioner for appearing in Assistant Prosecution Officer Examination, 2015. The petitioner appeared in the examination and was declared successful in the preliminary examination. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the main examination of the aforesaid recruitment process and was declared successful. He was called for interview by the Commission vide interview letter dated 21.08.2017. He was finally selected for the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer. He was directed to appear for medical examination before the Uttar Pradesh Medical Board vide letter dated 15.12.2017 and the petitioner appeared for medical examination on 26.12.2017. In his application form, the petitioner-appellant had already declared that there is matrimonial dispute in the shape of a Criminal Case No. 1459 of 2008 under Section 498A, I.P.C., yet, even after selection, the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 31.01.2019. The petitioner was acquitted in the aforesaid Criminal Case No. 1459 of 2008 vide judgment dated 01.02.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Ghaziabad. In the aforesaid criminal case, the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, after detail discussion and appreciation of evidences, concluded as under:

^^mijksDr ifjppkZ ls Li"V gS fd tgka ,d vksj vfHk;kstu }kjk crk;s x;s ?kVukØe esa rkfdZd rkrZE; dk vHkko gSA ogha nwljh vksj vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:} yxk;s x;s vkjksi lkekU; Ád`fr ds gSa rFkk ftu ?kVukvksa dk mYys[k vfHk;kstu }kjk fd;k tk jgk gS] muds frfFk;ksa esa lkeUtL; dk vHkko mijksDr iSjkxzkQ dh ifjppkZ ls n`f"Vxkspj gksrk gSA Li"V :i ls vfHk;kstu vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:} yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dks ;qfDr;qDr lansg ls ijs fl} djus esa vlQy jgk gSA rnuqlkj vfHk;qDrx.k nks"keqDr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA**

5. Aggrieved with the cancellation of his candidature, the petitioner preferred a Writ Appeal No. 3794 of 2019, which was disposed of by order dated 11.03.2019 directing the respondent No. 2 to reconsider and re-evaluate the suitability of the petitioner for appointment in accordance with law and in the light of the principles enunciated in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 06.11.2019 rejecting the representation of the