Mahesh Grover, J. - (1.) THE petitioner prays for quashing of order Annexure P -8 vide which his representation for appointment as Constable and allotment of constabulary number has been declined. The reason for such a denial was that the petitioner had not disclosed the factum that he had faced the criminal proceedings. The justification given by the petitioner is that he had been acquitted in the criminal proceedings much prior to his applying for the post of Constable.
(2.) BY virtue of Annexure P -8 three persons were similarly declined the benefit of employment including the petitioner. Two of the persons, namely Rajender Singh and Ramesh Kumar filed CWP Nos.5163 and 5381 of 2010 which were decided together on 27.5.2010 by observing as under : - In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue the appointment orders in favour of the petitioners on the basis of their merit in the selection. However, they will not be entitled to any monetary benefits, though their pay etc. shall be fixed on notional basis and the petitioners shall, however, be entitled to seniority on the basis of their merit in the select panel. Let the needful be done within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the competent Authority. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the petitioner had earlier filed CWP No.501 of 2005 before this Court which was dismissed in the year 2005 and SLP against the same has also been dismissed, to which learned counsel for the petitioner has responded by contending that all the three persons had separately filed writ petitions which were dismissed and SLP against them was also declined but this will not affect their case in view of the clarification which has been issued by way of Annexure P -4 and on the basis of which order Annexure P -8 has been passed.
(3.) ON due consideration of the matter, I do no find any distinction between the case of the petitioner and the other two persons, namely Rajender Singh and Ramesh Kumar, who were similarly situated as the petitioner and in whose favour this Court has granted the benefit in CWP Nos.5163 and 5381 of 2010.;