ORDER :

ANIL VERMA, J.

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

2. Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-

"(i) That, the order dt. 04-09-2017 (annexure P/1) may kindly be quashed.

(ii) That, the order dated 25-09-2017 (annexure P/2 may kindly be queshed.

(iii) That, it may be held that the petitioner is eligible and qualified to appoint on the post of Constable (Driver) and consequently the respondents may kindly be directed to appoint/join the petitioner on the post of Constable (Driver) and accordingly all the benefits be given to the petitioner.

(iv) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded."

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has submitted his candidature for the post of Police Constable in the respondent department. Result of written examination was declared and petitioner was found qualified for second stage. He also qualified in the physical test. He has furnished all the information and stated in column 12 that two cases were instituted against him, in which he has been acquitted in both the cases by the competent Courts. Nothing has been suppressed by him. Respondent vide impugned order dated 04.09.2017 (Annexure P-1) has declared unfit/disqualified the petitioner for police services as his acquittal is not found in the category of clean or hon'ble acquittal. He has been acquitted in one criminal case on the basis of compounding offence and in other matter, the concerned Court has passed the judgment under Section 232 of CrPC and on the basis of non-availability of any evidence against him, he has been acquitted. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner has preferred this petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State, in their written submission, submitted that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others reported (2016) 8 SCC 471 , it is a discretion of an employer to decide whether the appointment of the petitioner is suitable in public interest or not, which has been duly decided by the respondent in accordance with law. Petitioner's acquittal cannot be considered as beyond reasonable doubt and hon'ble acquittal, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for both the parties heard at length and perused the documents filed by them carefully.

6. Jurisdiction of the High Court in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to examine the decision-making process, than to act as Court of Appeal to substitute its own decision. In appropriate cases, if the Court finds that decision-making process is arbitrary or illegal, the Court will direct the authority for consideration rather than to substitute the decision of the competent authority with that of its own. In the case at hand, as evident petitioner has fairly disclosed the fact about the criminal cases, wherein he was acquitted. This information apparently is the foundation of passing of the impugned order dated 04.09.2017 (Annexure P-1). It is admitted position that only Crime No.359/2015 at Police Station Mungawali, District Ashoknagar, for offence under Sections 323 , 341, 506 (Part-II) read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been registered against the petitioner and vide order dated 14.06.2017 under Section 232 of CrPC, he has been acquitted from the aforesaid charges. Another matter, i.e., Crime No.360/2013 at Police Stati