Shishir Kumar J. - (1.) By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 3.1.2000 passed by the respondent No. 1 and for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the order; dated. 3.1.2000.
(2.) The fact arising out of the present writ petition, is that the petitioner was selected as constable in Railway Protection Force, Northern Eastern Railway in the pay scale of Rs.825-1200 by the Recruitment Committee constituted under Rule 49.2 of the Railway Protection Rules 1957. A written test and interview was held in the month of July 1997 in pursuance of the advertisement of the respondent No. 2. The petitioner was selected and directed to be present himself on 20.9.1997. The petitioner was directed to fill up the required form before the appointment subject to verification by the police authorities, about the character of the petitioner under Rules 52.1 and 52.2 of Railway Protection Force Rules. The petitioner appeared for medical examination and was found fit for appointment. A physical fitness certificate dated 19.9.1997 was also issued and the petitioner was required to fill up the form and there were various clauses to be filled up by the petitioner. Petitioner was assured that after the verification of the character of the petitioner as provided, the appointment letter will be issued. When the respondent issued appointment letter to the respective selected candidates for training and posting, but no appointment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner then the petitioner had enquired into the matter and then it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that certain criminal cases were pending and the petitioner has not disclosed this fact in the declaration form as such, the selection of the petitioner has been cancelled. The petitioner submitted a representation, but no orders were passed as the petitioner has been found fit for selection to the post of constable and on the basis of the medical examination, the petitioner cannot be denied training simply because one criminal case of frivolous in nature instituted on account of personal enmity were pending against the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the reports of the District Magistrate. Jaunpur and the Superintendent of Police have not found the character of the petitioner satisfactory as contemplated by Cause 18, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Chandra Shekhar Rajan, who was working as Principal, Training Centre, Railway Protection Force, Gorakhpur, annexing therewith declaration form as Annexure 1 to the said counter affidavit and has submitted that as there was requirement under Clause 12(1)(sic) regarding pendency of any criminal case or whether any cranial case was pending against the petitioner at any point of time or the petitioner was ever detained by the Civil Police, as thus the specific columns were there and the petitioner has not disclosed correct facts. Subsequently, on the basis of the investigation regarding verification of the character of the petitioner, it was found that various cases were pending against the petitioner bearing Crime No. 24 of under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 307, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. another case No. 301 of 1995 under Sections 328, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Case Crime No. 302 of 1995 under Section 25 of Arms Act and another Case Crime No. 512 of 1995 under Section 314 of Goonda Act it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that as the petitioner has not declared the correct information and has concealed the fact, therefore, he was denied the appointment.;