IMPORTANT POINT
Mere pendency of a criminal case does not disqualify a candidate for public service if the allegations are trivial and disclosed during the application process.

JUDGMENT :

By the Court.-Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.K. Roy, Additional Chief Standing Counsel who appears for the State-respondents.

2. This intra-Court appeal is against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.7.2022 passed in Writ -A No. 6513 of 2022 (Umesh Chand v. Sate of U.P. and 3 others) whereby the writ petition of the writ petitioner was dismissed.

3. The case of the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the advertisement was published by the Additional Secretary (Recruitment), Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, U.P. at Lucknow on 16.11.2018 for filling up the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC, Direct Recruitment October-2018-II. A total number of as many as 49,568 posts of Constables in Civil Police and Constables in PAC were advertised, break up whereof was 31360 posts was earmarked for Constable Civil Police and 18,208 posts for Constable in PAC. Advertisement itself provided 19.11.2018, as the opening date for submission of application form, 8.12.2018 as the last date for submission of the application form through online mode. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he being eligible and qualified in all respects applied online under OBC (M) category and was assigned Registration No. 100668830 and allotted Roll No. 1292100375. An admit card was issued to the writ petitioner requiring him to appear in the written test which was scheduled to be conducted on 27.1.2019 and the petitioner after clearing the written test was declared as qualified in written test. Thereafter the petitioner claims to have cleared the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and a provisional admit card was issued for DV/PST (Document Verification /Physical Standard Test) and was required to appear for document verification on 12.12.2019 at Reserve Police Line, Gorakhpur. In the list of successful candidates the name of the writ petitioner found placed at serial No. 11288. The petitioner claims to have underwent medical examination conducted on 23.8.2021. The petitioner further claims to have cleared the medical examination and thereafter merit list was prepared wherein the petitioner was shown to be selected while securing 179.0641 marks under Constable PAC, OBC (Male category) with rank 73304. Despite the fact that the similarly situated applicants were sent for training but the petitioner was not required to undergo training. Faced with the circumstances, the writ petitioner preferred Writ-A No. 2805 of 2022 (Umesh Chand v. State of U.P. and 3 others) which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 8.3.2022. On 2.2.2022, an order was passed by fourth respondent, the Commandant, 30th Battalion, PAC Gonda whereby the claim of the writ petitioner for being sent for training and issuance of the appointment order was negated on the ground that criminal proceeding was pending pursuant to the submission of charge-sheet and cognizance whereof has been taken by Criminal Court in Case No. 2517/2018 (State v. Kapil Dev) arising out of Case Crime No. 317 of 2017, under Section 148, 323, 504, 325 IPC.

4. Challenging the order dated 2.2.2022 passed by the fourth respondent, the Commandant, 30th Battalion, PAC Gonda the writ petitioner filed Writ-A No. 6513 of 2022 (Umesh Chand v. State of U.P. and 3 others) which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and the order dated 8.7.2022.

5. Aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.7.2022 passed in Writ-A No. 6513 of 2022 the appellant/writ petitioner has filed the present intra-Court appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner in support of appeal has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in dismissing the challenge made to the order dated 2.2.2022 of the fourth respondent, the Commandant, 30th Battalion, PAC Gonda in as much as mere pendency of the criminal case would not be a factor germane to denude the appellant/writ p