PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA,J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 14.1.2008 passed by the respondent No.2 deleting the name of the petitioner from select list to the post of Constable, as also the order dated 3.8.2009 passed by the respondent No.3 denying the appointment.
(2.) Brief facts are that the petitioner had applied for the post of constable in the police department and was sent the communication dated 21/5/2007 intimating that he has been selected and requiring him to submit character verification form disclosing the requisite information verified by the competent officer and also to submit an affidavit disclosing that no criminal case was registered/pending against him. The petitioner had furnished the requisite details along with details of two criminal cases in which he was prosecuted. It would not be out of place to mention here that while submitting the attestation form initially, the petitioner, in column No. 12 of the form had not disclosed the details of the criminal cases in which he was prosecuted. When the details of criminal cases registered against the petitioner came to the knowledge of the Inspector General of Police, he had passed the order dated 14/1/08 striking out the name of petitioner from the select list. The petitioner had submitted the representation dated 14/1/08 to Director General of Police and vide communication dated 24/7/09 he was informed about rejection. Thereafter, the petitioner had again submitted representation and had filed the present writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal cases registered against him and the petitioner had disclosed the said fact and the details of the criminal cases at the stage of character verification, therefore, his candidature cannot be rejected. He has further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 and has submitted that the respondents cannot supplement the reason of striking off his name from the select list in the reply before this Court.;