Serial No. 49

Regular List

i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc:

ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No in press:

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner had applied for the post of Havildar (clerk) under the General category and thereafter had successfully qualified in the selection process, and was called for Detailed Medical Examination, wherein he was declared fit. However, his name was excluded from the final merit list and his candidature cancelled due to a pending criminal case under various charges of the IPC and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act. The cancellation of his candidature on this ground, vide the impugned order dated 08.10.2024, has been assailed by way of this instant writ petition.

2. Ms. S.K. Lamba, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for the post of Havildar (clerk) under the General category and had successfully completed all four stages of the selection process but when the final merit list was published on 18.08.2023, only 8(eight) candidates were selected for 10(ten) advertised posts for Maharashtra and the petitioner’s name did not figure in the said list. It is submitted that thereafter the writ petitioner had filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court for directions for filling up the remaining posts, which however was not pressed on the ground of maintainability. The petitioner she submits, then filed WP(C) No. 348 of 2024, before this Court praying for filling up a vacancy that remains unfilled, but however on the candidature of the petitioner being cancelled by order dated 08.10.2024, on the ground of pendency of a criminal case, then withdrew the said writ petition and instituted the same afresh.

3. The learned counsel has submitted that though the writ petitioner had not disclosed the pendency of a criminal case at the time of application, the same was duly informed when he had appeared for the Detailed Medical Examination, wherein he had even produced the copy of the FIR registered against him, and that the petitioner had also duly filled up a Criminal Proceeding Registration form. As such, she submits it cannot be held that the petitioner has concealed the fact that a criminal case had been registered against him. In support of her submissions has placed the following judgments:-

i) Ravindra Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 5902 of 2012

ii) Prashant Deep vs. High Court of Delhi WP(C) 1960/2019

4. Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Ms. M. Myrchiang, learned counsel for the respondents in reply has submitted that it is correct that the petitioner had qualified all the mandatory tests, but as his Character Certificate was found suspicious, though his name was placed in the final merit list, it was kept on the suspected list. The learned DSGI submits that the office of the Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, while issuing the Police Clearance Certificate dated 14.06.2023, had remarked that there was a registered offence at Hatta Police Station under Sections 353, 332, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 427 IPC and under Sections 3(2) (va), 3(2) (5), 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s), under the Prevention of Atrocities against the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Act. Thereafter, he submits, clarification was sought from the Superintendent of Police, Hingoli on 17.04.2024, which was then confirmed by the said office on 04.07.2024. The learned DSGI has then submitted that the advertisement against which the writ petitioner had put his application at clause 28 thereof, had categorically stated that in case the information furnished by the candidate in the application form is found to be false at any stage of the recruitment rally and even at a later stage, the candidature of such candidate would be summarily rejected without any notice. Thus he submits, it was on this ground that the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled.

5.