Vikas vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This special appeal is directed against order dated 9.8.19 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the

appellant aggrieved by the order dated 5.4.18, rejecting his candidature for appointment on the post of Constable pursuant to the Constable

Recruitment, 2012, has been dismissed.

The facts relevant are that the appellant applied for appointment to the post of Constable pursuant to advertisement dated 28.9.12 issued by the

Director General of Police, Rajasthan. The appellant was selected and called for documents verification. The appellant was denied appointment

inasmuch as he had not disclosed the factum of his involvement in a criminal case wherein he was subjected to trial by a Criminal Court of competent

jurisdiction. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred a writ petition being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5675/14 before Jaipur Bench of this Court. The

writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.8.14 with the directions to the respondents to examine the case of the

appellant based on order dated 6.8.14 passed by the Inspector General of Police (Police Headquarter), Jaipur. After due consideration, the

candidature of the appellant was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 12.12.14.

The appellant, who had earlier approached the Jaipur Bench of this Court, did not challenge the validity of the order dated 12.12.14 for a long time

and thereafter, a writ petition being S.B.C.Writ Petition No.17059/17 was filed at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur, which was disposed of by the learned

Single Judge in limine with the directions to the respondents to consider the appellant's representation in light of decision of the Supreme Court in

Avtar Singh vs. Union of India: (2016) 8 SCC 471. The candidature of the appellant was again rejected by the respondents vide order dated 5.4.18

holding that the offences for which appellant was tried were not trivial in nature and the factum of appellant being subjected to trial having not been

disclosed in the application form as well as the verification form, he was not entitled for appointment.

The appellant did not question the legality of order dated 5.4.18 denying him appointment on the post of Constable for a period of about 15 months

and thereafter, he challenged the order by way of writ petition before this Court, which stands dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order

impugned inter alia on the ground of delay. Hence, this appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in dismissing the writ petition preferred by

the appellant on the ground of delay. Non disclosure of involvement in a criminal case on the part of the appellant wherein he was acquitted by the

court of competent jurisdiction was absolutely bona fide. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (supra) even if

the factum of involvement in criminal case was suppressed, the appointment could not have been denied to the appellant inasmuch as, the offences for

which he was tried, were trivial in nature and he was acquitted by the Criminal Court for lack of evidence. Learned counsel submitted that the

respondents denied the appointment to the appellant even ignoring their own circular dated 28.3.17. Relying upon decisions of this Court in Bhuta Ram

vs. State of Rajasthan :D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.442/16, decided on 8.8.16, State of Rajasthan vs. Love Kush Meena: D.B.Special Appeal

(Writ) No.373/2019, decided on 16.7.19, State of Rajasthan vs. Suresh: D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.1411/2019, decided on 28.1.20 and State of

Rajasthan vs. Chetan Jeff: D.B.Special Appeal Writ No.1479/2018, decided by Jaipur Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.3.20, learned counsel

submitted that the rejection of the appellant's candidature on the ground of suppression of the facts regarding his involvement in a criminal case, is ex

facie illegal and arbitrary.

On the other hand, Mr. Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the appellant deliberately

suppressed the factum of his being subjected to trial for offences under Sections 341, 323/149, 325/149, 448 and 427 IPC. Learned AAG submitted

that in the verification roll in the column regarding the involvement in criminal case, the appellant specifically mentioned ' ugha' and thus, the stand

sought to be taken that non disclosure was absolutely bona fide, is false to the knowledge to the appellant. Learned AAG submitted that the offences

for which the appellant was tried, were not trivial in nature and he was not acquitted on account of the charges being not proved beyond doubt rather,

he was acquitted in terms of the compromise arrived at. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union Territory Chandigarh Administration

vs. Pradeep Kumar: (2018) 1 SCC, 797, learned AAG submitted that even if the appellant was acquitted, it cannot be presumed that he was

acquitted/exonerated honourably and the acquittal does not make him entitle for appointment automatically and thus, taking into consideration the

totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the denial of appointment to the appellant cannot be faulted with.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

Indisputably, in the first instance, the writ petition preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the denial of appointment was disposed of by Jaipur

Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.8.14 and the representation made by the appellant pursuant thereto was rejected by the respondents vide

order dated 12.12.14. It is pertinent to note that the legality of the order dated 12.12.14 was not assailed by the appellant for about 3 years and

thereafter, the petition was filed at Jodhpur which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench without notice, with the directions to the respondents to

consider the representation of the appellant in light of decision of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (supra). The representation preferred by

the appellant was dismissed by the respondents vide order dated 5.4.18, the validity whereof was also not questioned by the appellant for a period of

15 months. Admittedly, the selection process for appointment to the posts of Constable initiated by the respondents in the year 2012 was concluded in

the year 2014 and the selected candidates were accorded appointment. It is not the case set out by the appellant that the posts advertised remained

vacant and were not re-advertised by the respondents. None of the selected candidates was impleaded as party respondent to the writ petition. In this

view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has committed no error in dismissing the writ petition, suffering from vice of delay and laches.

Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttranchal & Anr. vs. Shri Shiv Charan Bhandari: (2013) 12 SCC, 179, the learned

Single Judge has rightly laid down that the consideration of the representation relating to a stale claim or dead grievance does not give rise to fresh

cause of action.

In Bhuta Ram's case(supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the denial of the appointment to the appellant therein was set

aside by a Bench of this Court relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (supra) for fresh consideration.

In Love Kush Meena's case (supra), the respondent therein was acquitted of the criminal charges and the issue regarding the effect of the

acquittal had already been concluded by a decision of the learned Single Judge in a writ petition preferred which had attained finality. That apart,

pursuant to the information sought by way of verification form, the respondent therein had submitted a copy of the judgment dated 1.5.09 passed by

the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Laxmangarh in Sessions Case No.14/09 wherein he was acquitted of the charges for the offences under

Sections 302, 302/34 IPC. Suffice it to say that it was not the case of concealment/suppression of the facts regarding involvement of the respondent

therein in the criminal case.

In Suresh's case (supra), the decision of the Court does not reflect that the respondent therein had suppressed the facts regarding the pendency of

the criminal case, however, the appeal preferred was disposed of in light of Love Kush Meena's case (supra).

In Chetan Jeff's case (supra), the court declined to interfere, noticing the observations of the learned Single Judge that there was assertion and

counter assertion as to the information not furnished by the respondent vis-a-vis pendency of criminal case against him in relevant column no.15 of the

application but record in this regard was not produced by either of the parties.

Thus, none of the decisions cited by the learned counsel help the appellant in any manner.

It is noticed that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by order under appeal has relied upon a decision (7 of 9) [SAW-

1390/2019] of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar's case (supra) wherein while relying upon the decision in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi vs.

Mehar Singh: (2013) 7 SCC 685, Inspector General of Police vs. S.Samuthiram: (2013) 1 SCC 598 and Avtar Singh's case (supra), the Court held:

It is thus well settled that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle him for appointment to the post. Still it is open to the employer

to consider the antecedents and examine whether he is suitable for appointment to the post. From the observations of this Court in Mehar Singh and

Parvez Khan cases, it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be of impeccable character and integrity. A person having

criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was honourably

acquitted/completely exonerated. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is shown to be mala fide. The Screening

Committee also must be alive to the importance of the trust repose in it and must examine the candidate with utmost character.

14......

From the above details, we find that the Screening Committee examined each and every case of the respondents and reasonings for their acquittal

and taken the decision. While deciding whether a person involved in a criminal case has been acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a post in

a police force, nature of offence in which he is involved, whether it was an honourable acquittal or only an extension of benefit of doubt because of

witnesses turned hostile and flaws in the prosecution are all the aspects to be considered by the Screening Committee for taking the decision whether

the candidate is suitable for the post. As pointed out earlier, the Screening Committee examined each and every case and reasonings for their acquittal

and took decision that the respondents are not suitable for the post of Constable in Chandigarh Police. The procedure followed is as per guideline 2(A)

(b) and object of such screening is to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enters police force. While so, the court cannot substitute its

views for the decision of the Screening Committee.

On behalf of the respondents, much reliance was placed upon Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others (2015) 2 SCC 377. In

the said case, the appellant thereon was charged under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325 and 307 IPC but acquitted by the trial court holding that the

prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against him since complainant as well as injured eye witnesses failed to identify the assailants and

the complainant had stated that his signature was obtained on a blank sheet by the Investigating Officer. The case involved was a family dispute. In

such facts and circumstances, this Court held that acquittal of appellant Joginder Singh was an honourable acquittal and hence, he should not be denied

appointment to the post in question. The decision in Joginder Singh case does not advance the case of the respondents herein.

In a catena of judgments, the importance of integrity and high standard of conduct in police force has been emphasized. As held in Mehar Singh

case, the decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In the case in hand, there is nothing to suggest that the

decision of the Screening Committee is mala fide. The decision of the Screening Committee that the respondents are not suitable for being appointed

to the post of Constable does not call for interference. The Tribunal and the High Court, in our view, erred in setting aside the decision of the

Screening Committee and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

In this view of the matter, taking into consideration the deliberate concealment of the appellant regarding his involvement in criminal case and the

nature of the offences for which he was tried and acquitted pursuant to the compromise arrived at, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to

entertain the stale claim.

As noticed above, the selection process initiated in the year 2012 was concluded in the year 2014 and the claim of the appellant was rejected by

the respondents vide order dated 12.12.14 but the appellant did not choose to challenge the legality of the order for 3 years. Thereafter, the legality of

the order dated 5.4.18 passed by the respondents pursuant to the directions issued by this Court was also not assailed by the appellant for 15 months

and thus, even otherwise, the appellant who failed to approach the court with utmost expedition cannot be extended any relief in respect of the

selection process concluded long back in the year 2014, in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India.

In the result, the special appeal fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.