CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12965 OF 2009 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 25,2009
Amar Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner has been denied appointment as constable
general duty for which he stands selected as a candidate belonging
to scheduled caste category on the ground that he is involved in a
criminal case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 506 and 34
IPC. The petitioner, thus, prays for direction for his appointment
irrespective of pendency of this criminal case against him on the
ground that the offences alleged against him are not such which are
involving moral turpitude and so he cannot be denied appointment
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12965 OF 2009 :{ 2 }:
merely because of pendency of this criminal proceeding. The
petitioner has placed reliance on some instructions issued in this
regard in support of his submission.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner can
be so appointed. First, he refers to instructions issued by Director
General of Police on 2.7.2007 clarifying for the Chairman of the
Selection Board for appointment of candidates, who had been
acquitted before and after submission of the forms for recruitment as
constables. This clearly provides that all those candidates who are
facing trial for criminal offences will not be considered for
appointment as constables. There is another communication dated
13.7.2007 in continuation of communication dated 2.7.2007, which is
relied upon by the counsel. The relevant portion of this
communication dated 13.11.2007 reads as under:-
“This matter has been further examined and clarification
conveyed vide this office letter referred to above is
modified as under:-
a) Candidates against whom cases are pending should
be considered for allotment of Constabulary number
except those who are facing investigation/trial or have
been convicted in offences, involving moral turpitude.
b) The candidates acquitted on technical grounds in
offences involving moral turpitude, shall also not be
considered for allotment of constabulary number.”
This letter does provide that the candidates against whom
cases are pending should be considered for allotment of
constabulary numbers except those who are facing investigation/trial
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12965 OF 2009 :{ 3 }:
or have been convicted in offences involving moral turpitude. This,
thus, conveys an impression that those candidates against whom the
cases are pending should be considered for allotment of
constabulary numbers except those cases where the offences are
involving moral turpitude. This clarificatory letter appears to have
been issued only concerning some particular appointment as the
heading thereof would suggest which reads:-
“Allotment of constabulary numbers to the selected
candidates for filling up 3700 posts of constables”.
The present selection, however, relates to selection of
1940 constables, advertisement for which is issued on 5.10.2007. In
this advertisement, it was clearly mentioned that a candidate against
whom criminal case stands registered or is under investigation or
pending trial or has been convicted by a court of law need not apply.
Still, some of the persons approached this court by way of writ
petition which was disposed of with the directions to treat the writ
petition as a representation and to reconsider their case for
appointment in view of rules and instructions or the guidelines issued
in this regard. Strictly speaking, these orders and instructions are
issued for a particular appointment and accordingly some instructions
for recruitment for recruitment of 1940 male constables were also
issued concerning this advertisement. Though these instructions
dated 3.2.2009 have not been placed on record in this writ petition,
but came to the notice of this court in another writ petition. These
instructions read as under:-
“1. If a candidate was acquitted before the date of
appearance of the advertisement for applying
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12965 OF 2009 :{ 4 }:
(i.e.23.08.2007), he shall be given
appointment/regimental number, if he fulfills all other
mandatory requirements.
2. If a candidate got involved in a criminal case (non-
moral turpitude category), after applying for the post of
constable, which is under trial or under investigation,
shall also be eligible for appointment.
3. Following will NOT be eligible for appointment.
(i) Those who had criminal cases pending at the time
of advertisement and submission of applications.
(ii) those who got involved in criminal cases of “Moral
Turpitude” AFTER the date of the
advertisement/application.”
Some distinction appears to have been drawn for
appointment of those persons who are involved in criminal cases
pending against them at the time of advertisement and those who get
involved in criminal cases after the date of advertisement. It is
noticed that those who had a criminal case pending at the time of
advertisement and submission of the application will not be eligible
for appointment. This appears to be on the basis of conditions laid
down in the advertisement that persons involved in criminal cases
need not apply. The last date for application in this case was
23.10.2007. The petitioner got involved in this FIR on 24.4.2008. As
per the instructions dated 3.2.2009, if the petitioner got involved in a
criminal case (non-moral turpitude category) after applying for the
post of constable which is under trial or investigation, then he shall
be eligible for appointment. These instructions dated 3.2.2009,
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12965 OF 2009 :{ 5 }:
however, were not brought to the notice of the court while dealing
with the writ petition. Further it is noticed that some of the similar
situated persons have been given constabulary number, who were
candidates pursuant to the present advertisement, but have been
given appointment and constabulary number. In one of the case, the
writ petition was directed to be treated as representation and the
Director General of Police himself has allowed the said petitioners to
join service. Copy of this order has been annexed with the record as
Annexure P-10. Reference is also made to decision of Division
Bench in this regard dated 2.5.2008, which is allowed. Thus, while
declining to interfere in the writ petition at this stage as legal notice is
pending, direction is issued to the respondents to consider the case
of the petitioner in the light of the law and the instructions issued in
regard to this advertisement by treating this writ petition as a
representation, in addition to the legal notice which has already been
served by the petitioner and is pending decision. Let this decision be
taken within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy
of this order.
August 25, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE