Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
(2.) The petitioner, who has successfully competed in the Lekhpal (Revenue) Examination 2015 and is awaiting issuance of appointment order/letter, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 17.08.2016, passed by the District Magistrate, Amethi whereby the representation made by the petitioner for verification of his character has been rejected. The said order dated 17.08.2016 has been passed by the District Magistrate in purported compliance of an order dated 01.08.2016, passed by this Court while disposing of the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, namely, Writ Petition No.17349 (S/S) of 2016.
(3.) For being appointed as a Government servant, verification of the character and antecedents of an applicant is required to be done so as to judge his suitability to serve as a Government servant. Having been selected when the petitioner was not being issued appointment order/letter, though others were already issued appointment orders, he filed the aforesaid Writ Petition No.17349 (S/S) of 2016. The petitioner had earlier approached the District Magistrate, Amethi by moving an application on 01.07.2016 for issuing the appointment letter and giving him posting. An endorsement on the said application dated 01.07.2016 was made that as per the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Amethi, there is a case registered against the petitioner at Police Station-Kotwali, District-Amethi, under Sections 323, 308, 504 and 506 I.P.C. In the aforesaid view, the petitioner was not offered appointment letter. When he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.17349 (S/S) of 2016, the Court considered the matter and required the District Magistrate to consider verification of his antecedents and character in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India ans others, decided on 21.07.2016 Special Leave Petition (C) No.20525/2011 . The District Magistrate has passed the impugned order while noticing the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), however, he has rejected the representation made by the petitioner seeking verification of his character and antecedents stating therein that police verification of the character of the selected candidates was got done and in the said process the Superintendent of Police, Amethi had reported in his report dated 09.06.2016 that the petitioner is involved in Case Crime No.414-A/2010, under Sections 323, 308, 504 & 506 I.P.C. The District Magistrate while passing the impugned order has further observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) has observed that any applicant seeking appointment in Government service is under obligation to submit complete and true information regarding any criminal case either pending or registered against him. The District Magistrate has observed in the impugned order that the fact relating to pendency/registration of the criminal case against the petitioner came into light only once the police verification of his character was being conducted and further that the petitioner did not intimate the appointing authority about the pendency/registration of the criminal case.;