Decided on March 23,2021

Sanjeev Singh Jadon Appellant


G.S.AHLUWALIA,J. - (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 20.3.2017 passed by Inspector General (Security), M.P. Bhopal and order dated 31.10.2017 passed by Additional Director General of Police (SAF) Police Headquarter, Bhopal by which the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Constable was rejected.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that in the month of January, 2003, the recruitment to the post of Constable GD/Constable in 5th Battalion, SAF, Morena was conducted and the petitioner was selected for the post of Constable GD and, accordingly by order dated 29.3.2003 the appointment order was issued. It was specifically mentioned in the appointment order that as per Rule 12 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Quasi Permanent Rules, 1960, the services of the petitioners were liable to be cancelled by issuance of one month's notice or one month advance salary in lieu thereof. It appears that by order dated 18.3.2004, Commandant 18th Battalion, SAF, Gwalior terminated the services of the petitioner by issuing a month's salary in lieu of notice as his services are not required. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. No.642/2004 and this Court by interim order dated 31.3.2004 stayed the effect and operation of order dated 19.3.2004. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 22.11.2011. It appears that the petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.172/2012. It was the stand of the State Government that the petitioner had suppressed the factum of registration of offence against him punishable under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and, therefore, the appointment was secured by playing fraud on the respondent. However, W.A. No.172/2012 was finally disposed of by order dated 16.12.2016 with the following observations: 1. The competent authority ie respondent no.2, shall reconsider the case of the petitioner to adjudge his suitability for retention in Police Force in terms of the above directions keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Avatar Singh. 2. The said consideration shall be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 3. The decision taken by the employer after the said consideration shall be communicated to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. 4. While considering the case of the appellant/petitioner the respondent shall neither be influenced by passing of the impugned termination order dated 19.3. 2004 Annexure P-1 nor influenced by the fact of the petitioner having approached this court. 5. It is needless to emphasize that this court has not expressed any opinion on the suitability of the appellant/petitioner before retaining in service which is left entirely to the discretion of the competent authority before assessing on the basis of law discussed above and law laid down by the Apex Court. The competent authority is free to take decision either way.
(3.) It appears that thereafter the matter was reconsidered by the respondent on merits and by order dated 11.04.2017 the candidature of the petitioner was rejected and it was found that the petitioner is unfit for serving the police Department. Thereafter, again the petitioner filed W.P. No.3699/2017, which was allowed and the respondents were directed to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner. Now by order dated 31.10.2017 the petitioner has been once again declared unfit for recruitment.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.