Vipin Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others

C.K. Prasad, C.J. and A.P. Sahi, J.—Writ petitioner - appellant, aggrieved by an order dated 9.7.2009, passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33 672 of 2009, has preferred this appeal under Rule 5, Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

Writ petitioner-appellant was recruited as a Constable. As per requirement, the appellant had to furnish information of his involvement in criminal cases and accordingly he gave a declaration that he is not involved in any criminal case. On verification, it was found that he was involved in two criminal cases and accordingly by order dated 7th of August, 2007 his appointment was cancelled.

He assailed the aforesaid order in the writ application, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

Mr. A.K. Pandey appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant having been acquitted in those criminal cases, his appointment ought not to have been cancelled.

We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Pandey. The fact of the matter is that he had made a wrong declaration. The law in question is well-settled that wrong declaration made, entails cancellation of the appointment. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav,

This Court had also the occasion to consider this question in the cases of Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2006 (4) ESC 2625 : 2006 (6) AWC 5620 (All) and Krishna Kumar Vs. State of U.P., wherein the same view has been followed.

We are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned single Judge is in conformity with law. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.