JUDGMENT :

JASPREET SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vikram Bhadur Yadav, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 27.02.2019 passed by the respondent no. 4 whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.

3. The controversy involved in the instant petition has a background of a previous litigation. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment Promotional Board for recruitment of male constables in the Uttar Pradesh Police/Police Constables and Constable PAC direct recruitment of 2015, the petitioner has applied for the same under the Other Backward Class category. The petitioner had cleared the written examination and thereafter the final select-list was declared on 15.05.2018 wherein the petitioner was found successful.

4. The petitioner was directed to appear for a medical examination at Police Line, Deoria on 13.06.2018 where the petitioner was declared medically fit. The petitioner was required even to furnish his personal information in the form of affidavit which was also submitted on 08.06.2018 wherein the petitioner candidly disclosed that in a dispute between family members and initiated by wife of the elder brother of the petitioner, who lodged an FIR on 18.03.2016 registered as Case Crime No. 223 of 2016, under Sections 294, 323, 504, 506 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Dstrict Deoria. It was also informed that though a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-persons, however, the petitioner and the other persons were acquitted from the criminal charges by means of order dated 11.07.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria.

5. It is the specific case that the petitioner had disclosed the aforesaid information while filing his notary affidavit dated 08.06.2018 and the District Magistrate Deoria and the Superintendent of Police, Deoria passed an order recommending the appointment of the petitioner subject to the decision of the criminal case.

6. Subsequently, in the month of June, 2018, the petitioner was directed to join the JTC training at Ambedkar Nagar, however, when the petitioner went to join the training at the allotted district he was not permitted to join on account of the fact that there was a criminal case pending against the petitioner.

7. Since the grievance of the petitioner was not being considered, theretofore, he was compelled to file a writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Appeal No. 21704 of 2018 (Suraj Khiri vs. State of U.P. and Others), which was disposed of by this Court by means of order dated 12.10.2018 with a direction that the respondents will look into the grievance of the petitioner as raised by him in his application and pass an appropriate, reasoned and speaking order taking into account the law settled by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. State of Union, (2016) 8 SCC 471 within a period of three weeks.

8. It is further urged that it is in view of the aforesaid direction that the respondents have rejected the representation of the petitioner by means of the impugned order dated 27.02.2019 and refused the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that it was not a clear case of acquittal rather the petitioner was granted the benefit of doubt and since the disciplined forces require persons who have clear antecedent, accordingly the case of the petitioner did not find favour with the authorities.

9. Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the decision of Avtar Singh (supra) lays down the guidelines which ought to have been followed and in the instant case, the petitioner had candidly disclosed the fact regarding institution of a criminal case against him and also that he had been acquitted in the aforesaid case. It is urged that merely because a criminal case was pending at some point of time, i