Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5625 of 2020 Petitioner :- Vipin Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Singh,Suresh Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner in terms of the advertisement issued for recruitment of constable in Civil Police and Police Armed Constabulary had applied and passed the written and physical tests, however, despite his selection, no order with regards to joining were being passed, as such, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 1717 of 2020, which was disposed off on 3.2.2020 directing passing of the appropriate orders in the light of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, 2016 (8) SCC 471. In pursuance of the said direction an order dated 4.6.2020 was passed rejecting the candidature of the petitioner noticing the affidavit filed by the petitioner did not make truthful disclosure of the pendency of a case.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that an affidavit dated 8.5.2019 was filed by the petitioner making truthful disclosure of the pending case, however, on the ill advise, he again filed an affidavit dated 5.8.2019, which did not contain the truthful disclosure of the pending case. While passing the order impugned, the authorities only took into account the affidavit dated 5.8.2019 and did not take into consideration the affidavit dated 8.5.2019. He finally argues that even otherwise also, no consideration has been accorded in terms of the mandate contained in Paragraph 38.10 of the judgment in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) wherein Supreme Court held as under:
"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."
I have perused the order impugned which took into consideration and placed reliance only on the affidavit dated 5.8.2019 and does not consider the affidavit dated 8.5.2019. In any event, no order has been passed in the light of the specific mandate contained in Paragraph No. 38.10 of the judgment in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), as such, the order dated 4.6.2020 is set aside and the matter is remanded to Respondent No. 3 to pass fresh order after considering the mandate contained in Paragraph No. 38.10 of the Avtar Singh (supra) judgment and the affidavit dated 8.5.2019 (if any).
The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed 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