Smt. Jaya Tiwari vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others

The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the orders dated 12.08.2014 and 14.01.2016 passed by the respondent No.4.

The brief facts, of the case are that the respondents have published an advertisement from eligible candidates for appointment on the post of

Constable. The petitioner being eligible has submitted an application for appointment on the post of Constable Trade Cook. The petitioner

successfully passed the written examination with physical test in July, 2013 and his name is placed in the select list. Thereafter, the documents of

the petitioner were verified and Superintendent of Police, Rewa vide letter dated 05.09.2013 has informed to the respondents that a Crime

No.164/2013 for offences punishable under Section 341, 294, 323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code was pending at the relevant time and the

same has been concealed by the petitioner in Column No.12 of his application form. It has further been submitted that another criminal case is also

registered against the petitioner bearing criminal case No.1801/2013 and he was acquitted in the said case on the basis of compromise and

therefore, vide letter dated 12.08.2014, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the select list. Therefore, the petitioner served a legal notice to

the respondents. The respondent No.4 again vide letter dated 14.01.2016 denied the appointment to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by this

orders, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have illegally rejected the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the

post of Constable Trade Cook. It is submitted that in column No.12 with regard to character verification as the petitioner was acquitted by the

criminal court, therefore, he does not filled the said column and therefore, the act of the respondents in denying him appointment is unjust and

improper. In support of his submission relied on the decision passed by this Court in the W.P. No.1853/2015 decided on 03.01.2017.

The respondents have filed the reply and in the reply, the respondents have stated that the petitioner appeared in selection process for

appointment on the post of Constable Trade Cook wherein he was initially selected. Initially he suppressed the fact that one criminal case is

pending against him. However, subsequently at the time of character verification, it came to the knowledge of the Authority that one criminal case

for offences under Section 341, 294, 323, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code is registered against the the petitioner in Police Station

Mangawan, District-Rewa bearing case No.164/2013. It is further submitted that as the petitioner has suppressed this material fact, therefore, on

this ground, he is not entitled for any appointment in police department. The respondents have further stated that the validity of the select list is only

for 12 months and in the present case, the select list was of 29.07.2013, which was lapsed on 29.07.2014 and therefore, the name of the

petitioner was deleted on account of misconduct by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that in a criminal case, he has been acquitted

and therefore, entitled for appointment, the respondents have stated that the said acquittal was based on compromise and therefore, it cannot be

termed as Hon''ble acquittal. In support of his submission, learned Government Advocate for the respondents relied on the decisions passed by the

Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another Vs. Mehar Singh, 2013 (7) SCC 685 and State of M.P. Vs. Parvej

Khan, 2015(2) SCC 591.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner has initially

suppressed the material fact that one criminal case is pending against him in his application form. However, this fact came in the knowledge of the

Authority at the time of character verification, therefore, the respondents has deleted the name of the petitioner from select list. So far as the

acquittal of the petitioner in a criminal case is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of Mehar Singh and Parvej Khan (supra) has held that when

the acquittal is based on compromise then the same cannot be said to be Hon''ble acquittal and the person is not entitled for appointment on the

basis of said acquittal. In the present case, the validity of the select list has already been expired and the petitioner has filed the present petition

after expiry of the validity period of select list. In view of foregoing reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere in the said writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.