JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 16.01.2017 passed by the respondents whereby, the representation submitted by the petitioner in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation in W.P. No. 7224/2015 decided on 02.11.2016 has been rejected without considering the direction issued by this Court, wherein, it was directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Platoon Commander, after taking into consideration of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. delivered in SLP (c) No. 20525/2011 dated 21.07.2016.

3. It is submitted that petitioner was duly selected on the post of Sub Inspector. On earlier occasion, case of the petitioner was refused to be considered for appointment owing to the character verification, but the same was put to challenge by the petitioner by filing a writ petition alleging therein that although the petitioner was found involved in a criminal case bearing Crime No. 125/2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 294, 506 and 325 of IPC and he has been acquitted from the aforesaid criminal case on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties.

4. He submits that there is no consideration of the petitioner's case by the authorities and there was no application of mind, therefore, this Court vide order dated 02.11.2016 has quashed the impugned order dated 13.08.2015 and the respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of 'Platoon Commander', considering the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (Supra). Thereafter, the authorities have again re-considered the case of the petitioner and have rejected the same again observing that the petitioner has not been honorably acquitted and the candidate having a criminal background is not a fit person to get appointed in the disciplined police force. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Vs. Mehar Singh, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685 and further in the case of Parvez Khan Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2015 (2) SCC 591 and has rejected the claim. It is argued that the offences which were registered against the petitioner are simple in nature and the circular issued by the State Government to the aforesaid effect that even for the offence related to Section 354 and 325 of IPC do not include in moral turpitude. Thus, offence under Sections 148 and 149 of IPC being simple in nature could not have been considered the ground for rejection of the case of the petitioner. The order impugned is per se illegal and without application of mind.

5. It is further pointed out that the provision of Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that the acquittal which is based on compromise is acquittal for all the purposes. Thus, the contention of the respondents that he has been acquitted on the basis of compromise is of no help to the respondents.

6. It is argued that despite of the specific directions of this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the authorities have totally failed to appreciate the case of the petitioner in totality and without application of mind has passed the impugned order which is clearly unsustainable in facts and circumstances of the case. He has relied upon the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 7/20 (Rohit Singh Raghuwanshi Vs. State of M.P. and ors.) decided in 02.03.2020, wherein, in similar circumstances, the directions were issued to the authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner and the appointment was extended to the candidate. Petitioner's case is exactly identical to the case of the appellant in W.A. No. 7/2020. In such circumstances, the order impugned