Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14445 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Capt Seema Singh,Vinay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of 03 January 2020 pursuant to which his candidature for appointment in PAC has been rejected on the ground that he had failed to disclose the pendency of a criminal case registered as Case Crime No.129 of 2014 and which upon submission of chargesheet, has been assigned Special Case No.92 of 2014.
The impugned order records that the petitioner failed to disclose the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case. However, before the Court it is conceded that as per the affidavit filed before the respondents and a copy whereof has been appended with this petition, the petitioner had in fact disclosed the pendency of the aforesaid case.
The Court also notes that in that criminal case, the principal allegation was against the brother of the petitioner and one Smt. Anjali. A learned Judge of this Court noticing their contention that they were majors and had entered into wedlock consensually, had passed the following order on Writ C No.14991 of 2014:-
"In the case of Deepika and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (9) ADJ 534, this Court having analysed the law laid down by the apex court as well as by this Court in the cases cited in the judgment, held that where a boy and a girl are major and they are living with their free will, then, nobody including their parents, has authority to interfere with the living of the boy and the girl. The Court issued directions to the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful living.
In view of the above, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that liberty of the petitioners to live as husband and wife or their living in relationship, shall not be interfered with by the respondents or anyone else. In any case, if the respondent no. 4 and/or anyone else cause disturbance to the peaceful living of the petitioners, or in any way harass or humiliate them, they shall be provided immediate protection by the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 on production of certified copy of this order.
However, this order in no way expresses opinion about the validity of their marriage and genuineness of their marriage certificate."
The charge sheet which was submitted has been challenged in Application under Section 482 No.33020 of 2014 in which further proceedings of the criminal case have been stayed.
In view of the aforesaid, it if fairly conceded that the impugned order would not sustain and that the ends of justice would merit the matter being reexamined by the respondents.
Accordingly and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 03 January 2020 is set aside. The matter shall in consequence stand remitted to the second respondent for taking a decision afresh bearing in the mind the observations made hereinabove as well as the principles enunciated in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471. The exercise of consideration shall be concluded with expedition and preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a duly authenticated copy of this order.
Order Date :- 7.1.2021 Vivek Kr.