SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
ABHISHEK KUMAR YADAV – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS – Respondent
WRIA/18833/2021



A.F.R.

Court No. - 33

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18833 of 2021

Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar Yadav

Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Gupta,Narendra Giri

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Umesh Chandra Tripathi

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

1.

Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Mr. Umesh Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3

and Mr. Ashim Mukherjee, learned Standing Counsel for the State-

respondents.

2.

The writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated

24.11.2021 passed by respondent no.3, AGM(Pers.), Canteen Stores

Department (in short ‘CSD’), Ministry of Defence, Government of India

whereby the candidature of the petitioner for selection on the post of Lower

Division Clerk (LCD) has been rejected on the ground of suppression of

material fact of his involvement in criminal case which was registered

against him on 16.04.2010 prior to the submission of application form to the

Office of Staff Selection Commission.

3.

The facts of the present matter are as follows:-

(I)

The Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi issued an advertisement

in the year 2017 for 'Combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2)

Examination', inviting applications form for direct recruitment on the post of

Lower Division Clerk (LCD) in various departments under the Government

of India.

(II)

The petitioner being qualified and eligible applied for the aforesaid

post and after successfully completing written as well as type test, the

petitioner was selected on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LCD) in

Canteen Stores Department, Ministry of Defence, Government of India.

(III)

The concerned department/respondent no.2 issued a letter to the

petitioner, offering appointment as Lower Division Clerk in Canteen Stores

Department along with attestation form for employment. The petitioner

submitted the attestation form along with educational certificates.

(IV)

On 03.03.2020, while filling this attestation form, the petitioner

himself has disclosed the information regarding pendency of one criminal

case against him. On 22.10.2020, the concerned department issued a letter to

the petitioner for seeking clarification with regard to the criminal case

pending against him and direct the petitioner to forward the copy of F.I.R.

and latest Court proceedings/orders for completion of appointment

formalities.

(V)

In compliance of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner submitted his reply

on 06.01.2021 stating therein that the F.I.R. was lodged against him due to

family property dispute with his uncle namely, Shyam Lal Yadav, which was

registered as Case Crime No. 250 of 2010, under Sections 323, 504, 506,

308 I.P.C. at Police Station Soraon, District Allahabad. It was also

mentioned that during investigation the trial Court had released the

petitioner on bail. He has also mentioned that the Investigating Officer has

submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner under Sections 323, 504, 506

I.P.C. It was also submitted that trial Court after perusing the records, on

23.12.2020 declared the petitioner Juvenile and transfered the matter before

Juvenile Justice Board.

(VI)

On 26.04.2021, the General Manager, Canteen Stores Department,

Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India issued a letter for cancellation of

appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LCD) on

the ground that he had concealed the material facts with regard to the First

Information Report lodged against him.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was juvenile

at the time of alleged incident i.e. on 16.4.2010, he was 17 years 9 months

and 13 days old and he was declared juvenile by the concerned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate.

2

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents

have acted arbitrarily in non-suiting the claim of the petitioner, merely

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top