Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21472 of 2018 Petitioner :- Manvendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Bahadur Singh,Sanjeev Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
This petition has sought a direction for the petitioner being sent for training subsequent to his selection on the post of Constable in civil police. It appears that although the petitioner was initially selected during verification it came to light that he stood involved in Case Crime No. 483 of 2016 and Case Crime No. 501 of 2016. According to the petitioner, he had never received any intimation or notice of these criminal cases and, therefore, he could not disclose any details in that respect in his application form.
In view of the above Sri Singh contends that a charge of suppression of material facts would not be made out. Additionally, Sri Singh has referred to the circumstance that in case crime no. 483 of 2016 the petitioner was not named in the charge sheet. With reference to the second crime in question which has been referred to above, it is contended that a final report of closure has been submitted which has also been accepted by the concerned court.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand vehemently contends that irrespective of the closure of the criminal case, the charge of suppression of material facts would remain.
In the considered view of this Court no useful purpose would be served by retaining this petition on the board of this Court, since undisputably all these facts and rival contentions would have to be evaluated and considered by the competent authority in the first instance and a decision taken with regard to the suitability or otherwise for the appointment of the petitioner in the police force. This exercise would also have to be undertaken bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Avatar Singh vs. Union of India and others, 2016 (8) SCC 471. On this being the state of the matter, learned Standing Counsel stated that the fourth respondent shall duly evaluate the claim of the petitioner in light of the observations made hereinabove and pass an order dealing with the same in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition and its enclosures.
Accordingly and in light of the statement so made, which is recorded and accepted, nothing further survives on this petition, which shall in consequence stand disposed of.
It is made clear that this Court has not adjudged the merits or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 Imroz