Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4537 of 2020 Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Singh,Suresh Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner has applied for recruitment for the post of Constable in Civil Police and Police Armed Constabulary in the Examination to be held by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow. The petitioner stood qualified in the said examination. In the second stage of examination pertaining to document verification and physical standard test, the petitioner stood qualified in both the said tests and was allotted a district for undergoing training. The petitioner while applying had also filed an affidavit on 12.6.2018 disclosing all the relevant facts including the fact that a case in Case No. 90 of 2016 was registered on 19.4.2016 against him under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act was pending against him and a chargesheet stood filed in the said case on 16.5.2016. As the petitioner was not being sent for training, when the petitioner enquired, an order dated 15.10.2018 came to be passed holding that in view of the fact that a case was pending against the petitioner, he was not declared fit to be appointed and the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that no consideration has been accorded as was mandated by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, 2016 (8) SCC 471.
Surprisingly, in the said order there is a mention of disclosure by the petitioner in the affidavit filed and Superintendent of Police also notices the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), however, he has not rendered any finding in respect of the mandate specifically laid down in Paragraph 38.10 of the judgment in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), which is quoted hereinbelow:
38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
Thus, on that count alone the order dated 15.11.2018 is set aside. The respondents shall pass a fresh order considering the mandate of 38.10 of the said judgement.
The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the respondents.
The writ petition stands disposed off in terms of the said order.
Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated as certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 vinay