State of Rajasthan vs Chetan Jeff Case

State of Rajasthan vs Chetan Jeff Supreme Court Case Judgment 2022

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले


REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3116 OF 2022
State of Rajasthan & Ors.           ..Appellants
Versus
Chetan Jeff    ..Respondent
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in D.B.
Special Appeal Writ  No.1479 of 2018 by which the High Court
has   dismissed   the   said   appeal   preferred   by   the   State   of
Rajasthan and has confirmed the judgment and order passed
by the learned Single Judge directing the State to consider the
case of the respondent herein ­ original writ petitioner for
1
appointment to the post of Constable (General), the State has
preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present case in a nutshell are as
under:
2.1 Applications   were   invited   by   the   Director   General   of
Police   Rajasthan,   Jaipur   vide   Letter   dated   07.04.2008,   for
recruitment   to   4684   vacant   posts   of   Constable   (General),
Constable (Operator), Constable (Driver) and Constable (Band)
in different Districts/Battalions/Units of Rajasthan Police.  As
per 2008 Recruitment Notification, all interested candidates
were required to qualify the written test, physical efficiency
test,   proficiency   test,   special   qualification   test   and   an
interview   for   securing   appointment   for   different   posts   of
constable.  As per paragraph 9(e) of the said notification, the
candidates were required to fill in the correct information in
their application forms.   It provided that if the information
disclosed in the application form was found to be wrong and
incomplete, such an application form was liable to be rejected
at any stage of the selection process.  The respondent applied
for the said post and submitted the application form.   In
column 15 of the Job Application Form dated 26.04.2008 the
respondent herein ­ (hereinafter referred to as original writ
2
petitioner) had categorically stated that there were no criminal
antecedents against him.  He also stated that there were no
pending FIRs or criminal cases against him.  He also enclosed
the signed declaration with the application form stating that
the information disclosed in para 15 of the Job Application
Form   dated   26.04.2008   was   correct   and   there   was   no
concealment of any criminal record by him.
2.2 The original writ petitioner cleared the written test as
well as the physical test.   At this stage it is required to be
noted that as such, the original writ petitioner was already
facing criminal proceedings in FIR bearing No.458/2007 dated
17.12.2007 registered against him at Police Station, Neem ka
Thana, Sikar for the offences punishable under Sections 143,
341 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to
as, ‘the IPC’).  However, the same was not disclosed by him in
the Job Application Form.  Thus, as such he suppressed the
material   fact   about   pendency   of   the   FIR/Criminal   Case
against him.
2.3 The Superintendent of Police, District Sikar informed the
Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh vide communication
dated 21.08.2008 about the said FIR No.458 of 2007.  Based
upon the said information, the candidature of the original writ
3
petitioner was rejected on the ground that the original writ
petitioner   suppressed   the   material   fact   about   his   criminal
antecedents in Column 15 and made an incorrect statement
in the job application form.
2.4 Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature, the
original writ petitioner preferred the writ petition before the
learned Single Judge of the High Court by way of Civil Writ
Petition No.10250 of 2008.  It appears that one another FIR
bearing   No.102/2012   dated   27.01.2012   was   registered
against the original writ petitioner at Police Station Neem ka
Thana, Sikar for the offences punishable under Sections 147,
148, 149, 452, 380, 352, 427 of the IPC.   By the judgment
and order dated 30.07.2015, the learned trial Court acquitted
him for the offences under Section 352 read with Section 149
IPC in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
For the offences under Sections 147, 148, 455, 440 read with
Section   149   of   the   IPC   the   original   writ   petitioner   was
acquitted   extending   the   benefit   of   doubt.     However,   the
learned ACJM – I, Neem ka Thana, Sikar vide judgment and
order dated 21.01.2016 convicted the original writ petitioner
for offences punishable under Sections 341 & 323 read with
4
Section 34 IPC.   However, he was accorded benefit of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
2.5 By   the   Judgment   and   Order   dated   12.03.2018,   the
learned Single Judge allowed the aforesaid writ petition and
directed the State to consider the case of the original writ
petitioner for the post of Constable, inter alia, on the following
grounds:
“1.  That the Parties failed to place any material on
record to show that the Respondent suppressed the
information with respect to the criminal antecedents
in the column 15 of the said Job Application Form
dated 26.04.2008.
2.   That the Respondent in the instant case was
charged   with   the   offences   which   were   trivial   in
nature and the suppression of such offences by the
Respondent   should   have   been   ignored   by   the
Petitioners   herein.     In   order   to   substantiate   the
aforesaid proposition, the Hon’ble High Court relied
upon the judgment in Avtar Singh versus Union of
India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471.
3.  That the judgment dated 01.03.2017 in the case
of Bhanja Ram versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6884 of 2008, applied
squarely   to   the   facts   mentioned   in   the   said   Writ
Petition.”
2.6 The third FIR bearing No.348/2018 dated 05.09.2018
was registered against the original writ petitioner at Police
Station Neem ka Thana, Sikar for the offences punishable
under Sections 341 & 323 of the IPC.
5
2.7 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the Civil
Writ Petition No.10250 of 2008 and directing the State to
consider the case of the original writ petitioner for the post of
Constable,   the   State   preferred   the   Writ   Appeal   before   the
Division Bench of the High Court.
2.8 During the  pendency of  the Writ  Appeal, the  learned
ACJM, Neem ka Thana, Sikar vide judgment and order dated
09.09.2019   acquitted   the   original   writ   petitioner   for   the
offences punishable under Sections 341 & 323 of the IPC in
view of the compromise arrived at between the parties in FIR
No.348/2018.
2.9 One   another   FIR   bearing   No.505/2018,   dated
20.12.2018 was registered at Neem ka Thana, Sikar against
the original writ petitioner for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 323, 382, 427 IPC.
2.10 Despite   the   above,   by   the   impugned   Judgment   and
Order dated 04.03.2020, the Division Bench of the High Court
has   dismissed   the   said   appeal   and   has   confirmed   the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, by
which the learned Single Judge directed the State to consider
the case of the original writ petitioner for the appointment as
6
Constable.  That, in the meantime, the original writ petitioner
has been charge­sheeted for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 323, 382, 427 of the IPC in relation to the FIR
No.505/2018 and the trial is pending.
2.11 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court dismissing the writ appeal and confirming the judgment
and order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the
appellant – State to consider the case of the original writ
petitioner   for   appointment   as   Constable,   the   State   has
preferred the present appeal.
3. We   have   heard   Dr.   Manish   Singhvi,   learned   Senior
Advocate   and   AAG   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State   of
Rajasthan and Mr. R.K. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the original writ petitioner. 
4. Dr.   Manish   Singhvi,   learned   Senior   Advocate,   has
vehemently   submitted   that   considering   the   criminal
antecedents   which   were   suppressed   by   the   original   writ
petitioner,   both   the   learned   Single   Judge   as   well   as   the
Division Bench have committed a grave error in directing the
appellant   ­ State  to  consider  the  case  of  the  original  writ
petitioner for appointment as a constable.
7
4.1 It is contended by Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan that
despite Column 15 of the Job Application Form of the original
writ petitioner by which he was required to state true and
correct facts of criminal antecedents and despite the fact that
he   was   facing   criminal   prosecution   by   way   of   FIR
No.458/2007, the original writ petitioner suppressed the same
and did not disclose the same.   It is submitted that on the
contrary in the column of “whether any criminal case has been
registered against the applicant?” he said “No”.  
4.2 It   is   submitted   therefore,   when   the   candidate   at   the
initial stage itself did not state the true and correct facts and
as such suppressed the material facts, he is not entitled to be
appointed on the post as Constable. 
4.3 It is submitted that the post of Constable whose duty is
to maintain law and order, first of all should be honest.  It is
submitted that a candidate who, at the initial stage and before
even getting the appointment as a constable has suppressed
the material facts of having criminal antecedents and he has
made a false statement in the application form.  How can he
8
be trusted and be appointed as a Constable?  It is submitted
that   as   such   the   State   was   justified   in   rejecting   his
candidature   as   a   constable.     Reliance   is   placed   upon   the
decisions of this Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of
India,   (2016)   8   SCC   471  as   well   as Daya   Shankar
Yadav v. Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 103.  
4.4 It   is   urged   by   Dr.   Manish   Singhvi,   learned   Senior
Advocate for the State that even otherwise and till the Division
Bench decided the writ appeal, the original writ petitioner
faced 3 to 4 more FIRs, out of which, in two cases he was
acquitted by entering into a compromise and in one case he
has been convicted, however has been given the benefit of the
Probation of Offenders Act.  It is submitted that one criminal
case is still pending against him.  That such a person cannot
be appointed as a constable.   Therefore, it is requested that
this Court must consider the subsequent events also.
5. Present appeal is opposed by Mr. R.K. Shukla, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioner. 
5.1 It is vehemently submitted by Mr. R.K. Shukla, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioner that
9
having   found   that   the   offences   against   the   original   writ
petitioner were trivial in nature and he was acquitted and in
one  case  he   has   been   granted   the   benefit   of  Probation   of
Offenders Act, both, the learned Single Judge as well as the
Division Bench of the High Court have rightly directed the
State to consider the case of the original writ petitioner for the
post of Constable.
5.2 It is submitted that when both, the learned Single Judge
as well as the Division Bench have concurred on directing the
State to consider the case of the original writ petitioner for the
post of Constable and by giving cogent reasons, the same may
not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
6. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the
respective parties at length.
6.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the post on
which the writ petitioner is seeking the appointment is the
post of constable.  It cannot be disputed that the duty of the
constable   is   to   maintain   law   and   order.     Therefore,   it   is
expected that he should be honest, trustworthy and that his
10
integrity is above board and that he is reliable.  An employee
in   the   uniformed   service   presupposes   a   higher   level   of
integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and
on the contrary any act in deceit and subterfuge cannot be
tolerated. In the present case the original writ petitioner has
not confirmed to the above expectations/ requirements.   He
suppressed the material facts of his criminal antecedents.  He
did not disclose in the application form that against him a
criminal   case/FIR   is   pending.     On   the   contrary,   in   the
application form, he made a false statement that he is not
facing  any  criminal   case.     Therefore,  due   to  the  aforesaid
suppression,   his   candidature   came   to   be   rejected   by   the
appropriate authority.  Despite the above, the learned Single
Judge allowed the writ petitioner and directed the State to
consider   the   case   of   the   original   writ   petitioner   for
appointment as a constable mainly on the ground that the
offences were trivial in nature and the suppression of such
offences   should   have   been   ignored.     The   same   has   been
confirmed by the Division Bench. 
11
6.2 The question is not whether the offences were trivial in
nature or not.  The question is one of suppression of material
fact by the original writ petitioner in respect of his criminal
antecedents and making a false statement in the application
form.     If   in   the   beginning   itself,   he   has   suppressed   the
material fact in respect to his criminal antecedents and in fact
made an incorrect statement, how can he be appointed as a
constable.  How can he be trusted thereafter in future?  How it
is expected that thereafter he will perform his duty honestly
and with integrity? 
6.3 Therefore,   as   such   the   authorities   were   justified   in
rejecting the candidature of the respondent for the post of
constable.
6.4 At this stage the decision of this Court in the case of
Daya Shankar Yadav (supra) is required to be referred to. In
paras 14 and 16, it is observed and held as under:
“14. Rule 14 of the Central Reserve Police Force
Rules,   1955   relevant   in   this   case   relates   to
verification. Clauses (a) and (b) of the said Rule are
extracted below:
“14. Verification.—(a)   As   soon   as   a   man   is
enrolled,   his   character,   antecedents,   connections
12
and   age   shall   be   verified   in   accordance   with   the
procedure   prescribed   by   the   Central   Government
from time to time. The verification roll shall be sent
to the District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner of
the District of which the recruit is a resident.
(b) The verification roll shall be in CRP Form 25
and   after   verification   shall   be   attached   to   the
character and service roll of the member of the force
concerned.”
The purpose of seeking the said information is to
ascertain   the   character   and   antecedents   of   the
candidate so as to assess his suitability for the post.
Therefore,   the   candidate   will   have   to   answer   the
questions in these columns truthfully and fully and
any   misrepresentation   or   suppression   or   false
statement   therein,   by   itself   would   demonstrate   a
conduct   or   character   unbefitting   for   a   uniformed
security service.
16. Thus   an   employee   on   probation   can   be
discharged from service or a prospective employee
may be refused employment : (i) on the ground of
unsatisfactory antecedents and character, disclosed
from   his   conviction   in   a   criminal   case,   or   his
involvement in a criminal offence (even if he was
acquitted on technical grounds or by giving benefit
of   doubt)   or   other   conduct   (like   copying   in
examination)   or   rustication   or   suspension   or
debarment from college, etc.; and (ii) on the ground
of  suppression   of   material  information   or  making
false   statement   in   reply   to   queries   relating   to
prosecution or conviction for a criminal offence (even
if he was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case).
This ground is distinct from the ground of previous
antecedents and character, as it shows a current
dubious conduct and absence of character at the
time of making the declaration, thereby making him
unsuitable for the post.”
13
6.5 In State of A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu, (2005) 2 SCC
746, this  Court  has  observed  that  the   object  of   requiring
information   in   the   attestation   form   and   the   declaration
thereafter   by   the   candidate   is   to   ascertain   and   verify   the
character and antecedents to judge his suitability to enter into
or continue in service. It is further observed that when a
candidate suppresses material information and/or gives false
information, he cannot claim any right for appointment or
continuance in service.
6.6 In Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, (2013) 9
SCC 363, while joining the training, the employee was asked
to submit an affidavit giving certain information, particularly,
whether he had ever been involved in any criminal case. The
employee submitted an affidavit stating that he had never
been involved in any criminal case. The employee completed
his training satisfactorily and it was at this time that the
employer in pursuance of the process of character verification
came to know that the employee was in fact involved in a
criminal case. It was found that the final report in that case
had been submitted by the prosecution and accepted by the
14
Judicial Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the same, the
employee was discharged abruptly on the ground that since
he was a temporary government servant, he could be removed
from service without holding an enquiry. The said order was
challenged by the employee by filing a writ petition before a
Single Judge of the High Court which was dismissed. The
Division Bench upheld that order, which was the subjectmatter of appeal before this Court. Dismissing the appeal, this
Court observed and held that the question is not whether the
employee is suitable for the post. The pendency of a criminal
case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information
of such pendency. The case pending against a person might
not   involve   moral   turpitude   but   suppressing   of   this
information itself amounts to moral turpitude. It is further
observed that the information sought by the employer if not
disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression
of material information and in that eventuality, the service
becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had been no
further   trial   or   the   person   concerned   stood
acquitted/discharged.
15
6.7 In the case of Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2012)
8 SCC 748, in para 29.4, this Court has observed and held
that   “a   candidate   having   suppressed   material   information
and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue
in service and the employer, having regard to the nature of
employment as well as other aspects, has the discretion to
terminate his services.   In para 29.6, it is further observed
that   the   person   who   suppressed   the   material   information
and/or   gives   false   information   cannot   claim   any   right   for
appointment   or   continuity   in   service.     In   para   29.7,   it   is
observed and held that “the standard expected of a person
intended to serve in uniformed service is quite distinct from
other   services   and,   therefore,   any   deliberate   statement   or
omission regarding a vital information can be seriously viewed
and the ultimate decision of the appointing authority cannot
be faulted.
6.8 In Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India, (2010) 14
SCC 103, this Court had an occasion to consider the purpose
of seeking the information with respect to antecedents. It is
observed and held that the purpose of seeking the information
16
with respect to antecedents is to ascertain the character and
antecedents of the candidate so as to assess his suitability for
the post. It is further observed that when an employee or a
prospective employee declares in a verification form, answers
to   the   queries   relating   to   character   and   antecedents,   the
verification   thereof   can   lead   to   any   of   the   following
consequences: (SCC pp. 110­11, para 15)
“15.   …   (a)   If   the   declarant   has   answered   the
questions   in   the   affirmative   and   furnished   the
details   of   any   criminal   case   (wherein   he   was
convicted or acquitted by giving benefit of doubt for
want of evidence), the employer may refuse to offer
him   employment   (or   if   already   employed   on
probation, discharge him from service), if he is found
to be unfit having regard to the nature and gravity of
the offence/crime in which he was involved.
(b) On the other hand, if the employer finds that
the criminal case disclosed by the declarant related
to offences which were technical, or of a nature that
would   not   affect   the   declarant's   fitness   for
employment,   or   where   the   declarant   had   been
honourably acquitted and exonerated, the employer
may  ignore   the   fact   that   the   declarant   had   been
prosecuted   in   a   criminal   case   and   proceed   to
appoint him or continue him in employment.
(c)   Where   the   declarant   has   answered   the
questions in the negative and on verification it is
found that the answers were false, the employer may
refuse to employ the declarant (or discharge him, if
already employed), even if the declarant had been
cleared   of   the   charges   or   is   acquitted.   This   is
because   when   there   is   suppression   or   nondisclosure   of   material   information   bearing   on   his
character,   that   itself   becomes   a   reason   for   not
employing the declarant.
17
(d) Where the attestation form or verification form
does   not   contain   proper   or   adequate   queries
requiring the declarant to disclose his involvement
in any criminal proceedings, or where the candidate
was unaware of initiation of criminal proceedings
when   he  gave   the   declarations   in   the   verification
roll/attestation form, then the candidate cannot be
found   fault   with,   for   not   furnishing   the   relevant
information. But if the employer by other means (say
police verification or complaints, etc.) learns about
the involvement of the declarant, the employer can
have recourse to courses (a) or (b) above.”
Thereafter, it is observed and held that an employee
can   be   discharged   from   service   or   a   prospective
employee may be refused employment on the ground
of  suppression   of   material  information   or  making
false   statement   in   reply   to   queries   relating   to
prosecution or conviction for a criminal offence (even
if he was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case).
6.9 In  State   of  M.P. v. Abhijit   Singh   Pawar,   (2018)  18
SCC   733, when the employee participated in the selection
process,   he   tendered   an   affidavit   disclosing   the   pending
criminal case against him. The affidavit was filed on 22­12­
2012. According to the disclosure, a case registered in the
year 2006 was pending on the date when the affidavit was
tendered. However, within four days of filing such an affidavit,
a   compromise   was   entered   into   between   the   original
complainant   and   the   employee   and   an   application   for
compounding the offence was filed under Section 320 CrPC.
18
The employee came to be discharged in view of the deed of
compromise. That thereafter the employee was selected in the
examination   and   was   called   for   medical   examination.
However, around the same time, his character verification was
also undertaken and after due consideration of the character
verification report, his candidature was rejected. The employee
filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging rejection
of   his   candidature.   The   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High
Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed the said writ petition. The
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge
directing   the   State   to   appoint   the   employee   came   to   be
confirmed by the Division Bench which led to appeal before
this Court. After considering a catena of decisions on the point
including   the   decision   in Avtar   Singh v. Union   of   India,
(2016) 8 SCC 471, this Court upheld the order of the State
rejecting the candidature of the employee by observing that as
held in Avtar  Singh (supra), even in cases where a truthful
disclosure about a concluded case was made, the employer
would   still   have   a   right   to   consider   antecedents   of   the
19
candidate   and   could   not   be   compelled   to   appoint   such
candidate.
6.10 After reproducing and/or reconsidering para 38.5 of the
decision in Avtar   Singh   (supra), in  Abhijit   Singh   Pawar
(supra), in para 13, this Court observed and held as under:
“13. In Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India,
(2016) 8 SCC 471, though this Court was principally
concerned with the question as to non­disclosure or
wrong disclosure of information, it was observed in
para   38.5   that   even   in   cases   where   a   truthful
disclosure about a concluded case was made, the
employer   would   still   have   a   right   to   consider
antecedents   of   the   candidate   and   could   not   be
compelled to appoint such candidate.”
6.11 Recently,   in   the   case   of  Rajasthan   Rajya   Vidyut
Prasaran   Nigam   Limited   v.   Anil   Kanwariya,   (2021)   10
SCC   136,   this   Court   had   an   occasion   to   consider   the
submission on behalf of an employee whose services were
terminated on the ground of filing a false declaration to the
effect that neither a criminal case is pending against him nor
has he been convicted by any Court of law, that subsequently
he has been granted the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation
of Offenders Act and therefore his services ought not to have
20
been terminated.  This Court has observed in paras 13 & 14
as under:
“13. Even   otherwise,   subsequently   getting   the
benefit of Section 12 of the 1958 Act shall not be
helpful to the respondent inasmuch as the question
is about filing a false declaration on 14­4­2015 that
neither any criminal case is pending against him nor
has he been convicted by any court of law, which
was much prior to the order passed by the learned
Sessions Court granting the benefit of Section 12 of
the 1958 Act. As observed hereinabove, even in case
of subsequent acquittal, the employee once made a
false   declaration   and/or   suppressed   the   material
fact of pending criminal case shall not be entitled to
an appointment as a matter of right.
14. The   issue/question   may   be   considered   from
another angle, from the employer's point of view. The
question   is   not   about   whether   an   employee   was
involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether
he   has   been   subsequently   acquitted   or   not.   The
question   is   about   the   credibility   and/or
trustworthiness   of   such   an   employee   who   at   the
initial stage of the employment i.e. while submitting
the   declaration/verification   and/or   applying   for   a
post made false declaration and/or not disclosing
and/or suppressing material fact of having involved
in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have
been   disclosed,   the   employer   might   not   have
appointed   him.   Then   the   question   is   of TRUST.
Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer
feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself
has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the
material facts and/or suppressed the material facts
and   therefore   he   cannot   be   continued   in   service
because such an employee cannot be relied upon
even in future, the employer cannot be forced to
continue   such   an   employee.   The   choice/option
whether   to   continue   or   not   to   continue   such   an
employee always must be given to the employer. At
the cost of repetition, it is observed and as observed
hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee
21
cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be
in service as a matter of right.”
7. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
cases, it cannot be said that the authority committed any
error in rejecting the candidature of the original writ petitioner
for the post of constable in the instant case.  
8. Even   otherwise   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that
subsequently and during the proceedings before the learned
Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, there are three to
four   other   FIRs   filed   against   the   original   writ   petitioner
culminating into criminal trials and in two cases he has been
acquitted   on   the   ground   of   compromise   and   in   one   case
though   convicted,   he   has   been   granted   the   benefit   of
Probation   of   Offenders   Act.     One   more   criminal   case   is
pending against him.   Therefore, the original writ petitioner
cannot be appointed to such a post of constable.
9. In   view   of   the   above   discussion   and   for   the   reasons
stated above, both, the learned Single Judge as well as the
Division Bench have erred in directing the State to consider
the case of the respondent for appointment as a constable.
22
The   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is
unsustainable, both, on facts as well as on law. Under the
circumstances, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside
and is accordingly quashed and set aside.  It is held that the
candidature of the respondent – original writ petitioner for the
post of constable had been rightly rejected by the appropriate
authority.  Present appeal is accordingly allowed. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs. 
…………………………………J.
                (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
 (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
May 11, 2022.
23

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर