IMPORTANT POINT
The cancellation of a candidate's selection based solely on the registration of a criminal case, without evidence of complicity, is unjustified and reflects a lack of proper consideration of the facts.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against an order of the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri dated July the 8th, 2024, cancelling the petitioner’s selection/ candidature as a Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police on ground of his involvement in a criminal case.

2. The petitioner was selected as a Constable in the Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC, Direct Recruitment, October, 2018-II, held pursuant to an advertisement dated 16.11.2018 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Establishment/ Personnel, Office of the DGP, Police Headquarters, Lucknow. The petitioner says that pursuant to the advertisement last mentioned, he applied for the post of a Constable in the category of OBC Male. He says that he was eligible and fulfilled all the requisite qualifications and conditions mentioned in the advertisement dated 16. 11.2018. The application form was submitted online. A total number of 49568 posts of Constables Civil Police and PAC were advertised through the advertisement under reference. The petitioner says that 31360 posts advertised were earmarked for the Civil Police whereas 18208 for the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) Establishment.

3. Shorn of unnecessary detail, the process of selection under the Uttar Pradesh Police Constables & Head Constables Service Rules, 2015 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2015’) involves a process of selection where for the posts of Constables, there is provision for a written examination, followed by document verification, a physical standard test and a physical efficiency test. Those candidates, who come out successful through all these tiers of selection, find their name in the final select list. Those who figure in the final select list have then to undergo a medical examination, besides a character verification. After the written examination, the cut-off merit was published by a notification dated 20.11.2019 and those selected in the written examination were called to appear in the next stage of selection, to wit, document verification and the physical standard test. The petitioner qualified the written examination and secured marks higher than the cut-off. He was called for document verification and the physical standard test. The petitioner went through the document verification and physical standard test successfully as well as the physical efficiency test. This was followed by declaration of final select list vide notification dated 02.03.2020, issued by the Chairman/ Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow, where a total of 49568 candidates were declared selected for various posts pursuant to the Direct Recruitment of 2018-II.

4. A call letter was issued to the petitioner, asking him to appear in the medical examination, scheduled to be held at the Reserve Police Lines, Ghaziabad. The petitioner appeared in the medical examination at the appointed time and venue, where he was declared medically fit. He was then allotted District Mainpuri to join his training. The petitioner’s papers were sent to the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri for followup action, as the petitioner says, but at Mainpuri, he was not allowed to join training by the S.P. Going back a little in point of time, the petitioner says that at the time he went through his medical examination and document verification, the petitioner was required to furnish personal information in the form of a notarized affidavit and the petitioner submitted his notarized affidavit before the competent Authority on 10.09.2020, where the petitioner did not disclose that any criminal case was pending against him. It is pleaded by the petitioner that at the time he submitted the notarized affidavit before the competent Authority on 10.09.2020, there was no criminal case against the petitioner, and, therefore, he was not obliged to say that one was pending against him. The petitioner, however, was not permitted to join training by the S.P., Mainpuri on ground that a criminal case