ORDER

1. With the consent, finally heard.

2. The challenge is mounted in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the order dated 14.4.2014 whereby petitioner was informed that Screening Committee has found him unsuitable for appointment in Police Department.

Facts of the case :-

3. The admitted facts between the parties are that petitioner submitted his candidature for the post of Constable in the Police Department. The petitioner in ‘character verification’ form clearly disclosed about outcome of criminal case instituted against him. The petitioner was subjected to a trial for allegedly committing offences under sections 294, 323, 325 and 506-II of IPC. However, the matter was compromised and the Court by order dated 11.2.2014 acquitted the petitioner from charges on the basis of compromise.

Contention of petitioner :-

4. Shri Prakash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first objection raised by the opposite side is regarding delay in filing this petition. The rejection order was passed on 14.4.2014 (Annexure P/1) whereas this petition is filed on 24.7.2017. By placing reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in (1992) 2 SCC 598 M/s Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited v. District Board, Bhojpur and others, (2007) 9 SCC 274 Shiv Dass v. Union of India and others, (2007) 14 SCC 766 Chairman, Food Corporation of India and others v. Sudarsan Das and (2010) 12 SCC 471 Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and others v. State of Orissa and others, it is urged that delay is not fatal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no limitation prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. No straight jacket formula can be framed for measuring the delay. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case whether delay is condonable or ignorable. The apex Court opined that when no limitation is prescribed, the limitation to file a civil suit of similar nature can be the basis for measurement of delay. To challenge a termination order in the civil suit, limitation is three years. This petition is filed after three years few months and in the circumstances it is filed, delay may be ignored.

6. On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court on 13.10.2022 directed the respondents to file the relevant pages/decision of the Screening Committee. In turn, they have filed the ‘compliance report’ and the said documents. By taking this Court to the note-sheet of Screening Committee dated 19.3.2014, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences aforesaid were treated to be involving ‘moral turpitude’ whereas offences under sections 323 & 325 of IPC do not fall within the ambit of ‘moral turpitude’. Reliance is placed on a Circular of State Government dated 24.7.2018 (Annexure P/6) wherein the list of offences involving ‘moral turpitude’ is prepared which does not contain the offences for which the petitioner was tried.

7. Shri Prakash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in (2016) 8 SCC 471 (Avtar Singh v. Union of India) and the recent judgment reported in (2022) 1 SCC 1 (Union of India and others v. Methu Meda) to highlight the need of application of mind by the Screening Committee.

8. To elaborate, it is submitted that petitioner’s candidature is rejected by holding that offences allegedly committed fall within the ambit of ‘moral turpitude’. The Screening Committee was required to examine the factual matrix on which edifice of prosecution was founded upon, the nature of offences and other circumstances. Without minutely examining these aspects, the rejection order is passed which shows non-application of mind. Shri Upadhyay, referred the factual backdrop of the matter in which compromise was entered into between the parties which ultimately ended into acquittal based on compromise.

Contention of respondents :-

9. Sounding a contra note, Shri Deepak Sahu, learned Panel L