1

In Residence

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9594 of 2020

Petitioner :- Anuj Kumar

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

1.

The petitioner has assailed the order dated

03.09.2020 passed by respondent no. 3- Commandant,

43 Battalion, Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC),

Etah, whereby the competent authority has found that

the petitioner is not suitable for appointment on the post

of Constable in the PAC.

2. Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

petitioner contends that the respondent No.3 was

misdirected in law by overlooking the fact that the

petitioner was tried for an offence as a juvenile. The

case of the petitioner is covered by the law laid down

by this Court in Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and

another, reported at 2019 (4) ADJ 316, Shivam

Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported at

(2020) 5 ADJ 6 and in Kishan Paswan Vs. Union of

India and others reported at 2020 (11) ADJ 254. The

impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and violative of

fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under

Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that

the pendency of a criminal case and the suppression of

2

the same in the Attestation Form by the petitioner are

admitted. The offence against the petitioner was not of

a trivial nature, and moreover the petitioner had been

convicted by the learned trial court. He is not suitable

for appointment in a disciplined force like the

Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) and his

candidature was lawfully invalidated. The impugned

order is not liable to be interfered with.

4. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

5. The petitioner applied for appointment on the post

of Constable in the Civil Police and Provincial Armed

Constabulary (PAC) in response to an advertisement

issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and

Promotion Board, Lucknow, on 14.01.2018.

6. The petitioner was successful in the written

examination and also qualified the physical standard

test. The petitioner was selected for appointment to the

post of Constable in the PAC and his name was shown

at serial no. 1350 of the select list taken out by the

respondent authority.

7. After the selection of the petitioner, an enquiry was

made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etah, into

the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and his

suitability for appointment to the post of Constable in

the PAC. The aforesaid enquiries revealed that the

petitioner had faced criminal prosecution consequent to

registration of Case Crime No. 104 of 2011, under

3

Sections 3/4 of U.P. Public Examinations (Prevention

of Unfair Means) Act, 1998. On account of the

aforesaid criminal case faced by the petitioner, the

petitioner was refused appointment as Constable in the

PAC.

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid denial of appointment,

the petitioner instituted a writ petition before this Court,

registered as Writ A No. 4270 of 2020, Anuj Kumar Vs.

State of U.P. and Others. The writ petition was decided

by a judgment rendered on 15.06.2020. The operative

portion of the aforesaid judgment in Anuj Kumar

(supra), is extracted hereinunder:

“In view of the above, as no useful purpose would be served in

keeping the matter pending, with the consent of parties the matter

is being decided at this stage. It is directed that in case petitioner

approaches the respondent no. 3 through a comprehensive

representation alongwith certified copy of this order within fifteen

days from today, the respondent no. 3 shall consider and decide the

same, in accordance with law, keeping in mind the guidelines

issued by Apex Court in case of Avtar Singh (Supra), preferably

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of

representation of petitioner.

Writ petition stands disposed of.”

9. In compliance