M.R. Agnihotri, J. - (1.) Petitioner Subhash has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the State of Haryana to treat the petitioner having been rightly appointed as constable in the police department and to grant him all other consequential benefits on the basis thereof, and also to depute him for training in the Lower School Training Course in the next session.
(2.) In July/August, 1989, the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak invited applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of constables in the Police department. In response to that the petitioner applied and appeared in the physical test on 18.8.1989 to 20.8.1989. His name was placed at Serial No.2 in the merit list of Ex-servicemen candidates for the post of constable (driver). He was medically examined by the Chief Medical Officer, Rohtak and was found medically fit and as a result thereof he was appointed as constable on 4.9.1989. Simultaneously communication was sent for the character verification of the petitioner. On 9.10.1989 it was intimated that the petitioner was of good character and he did not take part in any political activities etc. However, it was added that he had been once arrested in connection with some criminal case under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code but was acquitted by the Court on 10.11.1986. On the receipt of this character verification instead of deputing the petitioner for lower school training, the respondents decided not to treat him as duly appointed constable on account of the petitioner's concealment of his involvement in a case under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved against that the petitioner approached this Court. While admitting his writ petition the Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents for deputing him for training course vide order dated 21.12.1989. Somehow this order has not been complied with so far and the petitioner has not been deputed to undergo the lower training course.
(3.) In reply to the writ petition it was pleaded by the respondents, that in fact petitioner was prosecuted not under Section 379 but under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, which charge too could not be proved against the petitioner. It has further been admitted that the petitioner had been acquitted by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak on 10.11.1986. In nutshell the plea made by the respondents is that even though the petitioner had qualified for appointment as constable and was found fit in all other respects, still he could not be appointed due to his concealment of material information from the respondents.;