IMPORTANT POINT
Non-disclosure of juvenile criminal cases by candidates does not constitute concealment, and such grounds cannot invalidate employment.

JUDGMENT :

Prakash Padia, J.

1. Heard Rishabh Kesarwani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandan Kumar, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assail the orders dated 16.11.2017, 25.5.2017 and 6.8.2006 passed by the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively which has been enclosed alongwith the petition as Annexures 1 to 3. The petitioner further prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the services of the petitioner on the post of Constable.

3. It is admitted between the parties that the matter is absolutely identical to the judgment passed by the coordiante Bench of this Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Yadav, passed in Writ-A No. 2844 of 2018 on 31.1.2023. Hence, the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was recruited as a Constable in Group-C and was posted at Police Line Gorakhpur. On 18.6.2006, the respondent No. 5 terminated the services of the petitioner and cancelled his appointment without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing. The ground for terminating the services of the petitioner was that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case bearing Case Crime No. 637/2001, under Sections 363, 366IPC, registered at Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur, which was not disclosed by the petitioner at the time of filing of an affidavit and this was nothing but concealment of fact.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had applied for the selection on the post of Constable in the year 2005. After completing all the formalities, the petitioner was selected and appointed as a Constable in June, 2006. With the change in the political climate in the State, re-verification of the documents submitted by the recruit constables was made so also the Constables, who were selected and appointed between 2004 to 2006, who were again called for medical examination and verification of the documents. In the aforesaid backdrop the selection of the petitioner came to be cancelled on the ground that the petitioner had concealed that he was involved in the case bearing Case Crime No. 637/2001.

6. It has also urged that in view of the mass cancellation of selection, a number of writ petitions were filed before this Court and all of them came to be allowed by means of the judgment and order passed in the leading case of Pawan Kumar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (10) ADJ 321. It is further urged that special appeal against the said judgment was also dismissed and the judgment and order in the case of Pawan Kumar Singh (supra) was affirmed. Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court remained pending wherein on 25.2.2009, an order was passed that the selection which were made shall be provisional and would be subject to the decision of the SLP. Later, by means of the order dated 8.3.2013, the SLP of the State was also dismissed.

7. In the aforesaid backdrop, number of similarly situated persons filed writ petitions which were disposed of with a direction to the respondents-authorities to consider their case. The petitioner also moved a representation for his reinstatement on the basis of the decision taken by the State for re-appointing the persons. However, the said representation of the petitioner remained pending and no action was taken.

8. Since, the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement was not considered and he was terminated without assigning any reason as such he preferred a departmental appeal on 1.4.2017 under Rule 20 of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal), Rules, 1991. It is urged that the appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed and thereafter the petitioner preferred a revision which also came to dismissed on 16.11.2017. It is in this context that the petitioner has assailed the three orders in the instant petition