$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decided on: 29.09.2015 +

W.P. (C) 1612/2015 BRIJESH KUMAR SAHU ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Praveen Swarup and Mr R.K. Singh, Advocates versus CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through: Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay, Advocate and Mr Noor Anand, Government Pleader CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA (OPEN COURT)

1. In response to an advertisement to the appointment to the post of Sub- Inspector/Executive in CISF through Staff Selection Commission (SSC) Examination, 2012, the petitioner had applied and also qualified for the said post. He was provisionally appointed vide order dated 03.07.2013 to the post of Sub-Inspector/Executive and was directed to report to Director, National Industrial Security Academy (NISA), Hakimpet, Hyderabad on 09.08.2013 for training, subject to the verification of his character and antecedents. According to the directions, he produced the necessary documents along with character certificate and also submitted a copy of the Court order/judgment dated 15.06.2009 of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Waidhan, Sidhi (MP) in criminal case No. 680/2005, whereby he was acquitted of the offence under Section 294/506/323/325/34 IPC in FIR No. 353/2005 and another order of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Singrauli (MP) passed in criminal case No.1297/2006, whereby he was acquitted of the offences under Sections 294/506/427/34 IPC in FIR No.726/2006 dated 13.12.2006.

2. The petitioner was issued a letter dated 28.08.2013 by the Commandant/TRG, CISF, NISA, Hyderabad asking him not to report for duty since his matter was pending before the Standing Screening Committee. He was also asked to submit a readable copy of the FIR and final report and other documents to the academy which were duly submitted by him. However, by impugned order dated 23.11.2013, provisional letter of appointment was withdrawn on the ground that he was not found suitable for appointment in CISF. The petitioner has challenged the said act of the respondent on the ground that he had truly and faithfully and without any concealment submitted all the requisite information relating to his involvement in criminal case at the time of furnishing questionnaire. It is further submitted that FIR No.353/2005 of P.S.Baidan dated 23.08.2005 as well as another FIR No. 726/2006 dated 13.12.2006 of P.S. Baidan were registered against him due to the village rivalry and he had been falsely implicated in these cases along with others and that both the cases were compromised and he was acquitted by the Court.

3. The petitioner submits that in view of various orders of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police & Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar (2011) 1 SCC (LS) 734, past antecedents of a candidate showing his involvement in a criminal case which had resulted in acquittal should not be taken as a reason for cancellation of the candidature. It is submitted that this Court in the case of Rahul Yadav vs. CISF and Anr in W.P. (C) No.8094/2010 enumerated the parameters for the Screening Committee while considering the cases of the candidates involved in criminal cases. It is contended that the Screening Committee has not considered the case of the petitioner in the right perspective and had not applied its mind objectively to the facts of the case and had passed a mechanical order. It is further submitted that earlier too he had filed a writ petition W.P.(C) No.1293/2014 where the respondents had filed their counter-affidavit and had stated that the case of the petitioner along with 12 other candidates was referred to the Standing Screening Committee which decided as to his suitability in CISF and had also relied on the guidelines to the notification of MHA dated 01.02.2012. It is submitted that these guidelines do not govern the petitioner as he was not an enrolled member of the Force, and so not governed b