- (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against judgment and order dated January 14, 2010 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 1512 of 2009.
(2.) By the order impugned, the said tribunal disposed of the said original application, inter alia, holding that the tribunal was unable to issue any order directing the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment when police verification report was not submitted in favour of the writ petitioner.
(3.) The facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are as follows: (a) The authorities declared vacancies for appointment to the post of constable in the West Bengal Police for the district of Hooghly. The petitioner was one of the applicants. He participated in the selection process in terms of the order of the said tribunal dated October 23, 2008 passed in Original Application No. 9025 of 2008. (b) The provisionally selected candidates, including this writ petitioner, were directed to report at Reserve Office, Hooghly, Chinsurah Police line, on December 21, 2008 for their medical examination along with all the testimonials. (c) The medical examination of this writ petitioner was conducted on December 24, 2008 and the medical officer issued a certificate declaring that the petitioner was not disqualified for employment in the office of Superintendent of Police, Hooghly. (d) The writ petitioner alleges that he was preparing for participation for the job of police constable along with his friends. When they were on practice run along the Bhaghirathi River, one of his friends defecated in a sugarcane field where he was, ultimately, found dead. The family members of the deceased lodged a complaint with Rejinagar Police Station, which was, ultimately, registered as Rejinagar Police Station Case No. 126 of 2006 dated October 21, 2006 under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was implicated as one of the accused in the said case. (e) The petitioner, however, claims that he is innocent. (f) The incident occurred when the petitioner was a juvenile and the case has, since, been referred to Juvenile Justice Board constituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. (g) The matter is pending before the Juvenile Justice Board in Murshidabad. As the case is, still, pending before the Juvenile Justice Board in Murshidabad, the police verification report of the petitioner was not submitted. (h) The petitioner was, therefore, compelled to move an application dated March 9, 2009 before the Juvenile Justice Board, Murshidabad, for a direction on the police authorities to complete the police verification and to submit a report declaring the petitioner as fit for the post of constable of police. He relied on the provisions of Section 19 of the said Act of 2000. (i) The Juvenile Justice Board by order dated March 13, 2009, disposed of the said application of the petitioner holding that the said Board had no authority to direct the police authorities to qualify the juvenile in conflict with law as fit for the post of constable of police. However, in the order dated March 9, 2009 the Juvenile Justice Board observed as under: So, it is, further, stated here that juvenile means who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of age as on the date of commission of such offence. All concerned must take note of the fact that once competent authority has bestowed the status of juvenility in respect of an offence upon an individual, he is entitled to get the benefits encapsulated in the Act irrespective of the fact that he may be major today. (j) The petitioner submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Hooghly, on March 18, 2009, requesting him for giving appointment to the post of constable of police. (k) Since, the authorities did not complete the police verification and take steps in appointing the writ petitioner as a constable of police, he approached the tribunal with the original application. (l) By the order impugned, as aforesaid, the original application was disposed of by the said tribunal.;