The gravity of the offence, the stage of trial, and other relevant aspects must be considered while deciding on the cancellation of selection based on a criminal case. Trivial allegations may not be sufficient to deny appointment.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the order dated 05.07.2019, passed by the Chairman/Upper Sachiv, U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow, holding that petitioner has a criminal case registered against him and hence he is not eligible for being appointed on the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC and that only persons who are upright with clear/clean record can only be appointed on the said post.

2. Brief facts are that the petitioner applied on 19.02.2018 for the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC in pursuance of an advertisement published by U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow in the year 2018. In the said advertisement 41,000 vacancies were advertised for the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC. Along with the necessary documents, the petitioner also submitted an affidavit declaring that one N.C.R. case is pending against him. The petitioner qualified Written Examination held on 18.06.2018 as well as the physical test held on 11.12.2018. Subsequently, his medical test was conducted and therein he was declared fit for selection to the advertised post. A merit list of the successful candidates was prepared and the petitioner's name appeared on serial No. 2378. However, the respondent No. 2 by its order dated 05.07.2019, cancelled the petitioner's selection to the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC, on the ground that the petitioner has concealed a pending criminal case bearing Crime No. 39 of 2013 registered under Section 323/504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is in violation of a Government Order dated 28.04.1958. As per Para 3 of the G.O. dated 28.04.1958, candidates involved in offences involving moral turpitude and violence against State should not be recommended for selection.

3. The petitioner submitted his reply and explained to the respondents about the pendency of the criminal case, that he had already declared about the criminal case in the affidavit which he submitted along with the application form. He further submitted that he did not know the particulars of the case registered against him as he has not yet been issued any summons by the court concerned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order stating that he has not concealed the pending criminal case while filling up the application form. The criminal case is registered by the neighbour of the petitioner. Furthermore, in the said case only minor Sections of I.P.C. i.e. Sections 323, and 504 are involved which are trivial in nature and hence accordingly, filing of the first information report should not come into the way of the petitioner being appointed to the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India, 2016 (8) SCC 471. In the said judgment the Apex Court in para 38 has laid down various aspects for consideration of persons facing criminal trial and issues regarding the person being convicted or acquitted in such trial.

6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record with their assistance.

8. It is noticed that the petitioner applied for the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC and was duly selected in the said selection process. Even though it was already disclosed by the petitioner at the time of filing of the application form, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him. The case is registered for minor offences under IPC and has been instituted at the instance of a neighbour. The trial has also not concluded to date.

9. Cancellation of the selection of a candidate on the ground