K.KANNAN, J. - (1.) THE petitioner seeks for a mandamus against the respondents for appointment as Legal Officer in Assistant Administrative Officer cadre with the Oriental Insurance Company. The admitted case is that after the recruitment process, the petitioner had been issued with letter of provisional selection as having been made and he was to report for medical examination on 13.04.1987. However, the final appointment order had not been issued and the employer in the meanwhile had some information about the fact that the petitioner had been involved in a criminal case. There was a letter of communication from one of the persons, who had given a reference about the petitioner's good conduct, that the petitioner was a fraudster and he was the brother of one Vijay Kumar Sharma, who was a thief against whom a FIR had been registered along with other persons. The person had also sounded a note of caution to the employer against taking him in their employment. Through the impugned telegram dated 22.07.1987, the petitioner was informed that the provisional selection had been cancelled. This communication is the subject of challenge in this writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner's contention is that one R.M. Jain, who was the proprietor of M/s Special Machines, Karnal, had a business rivalry with the petitioner's brother, who had established a new industry called M/s Sheela Industries. The said Jain had got a false case registered under Section 408/506 CPC against the petitioner, his brother and brother -in -law. The case was a foisted one. The petitioner was a respectable citizen being a practitioner at law and had no criminal antecedent. The action of the respondents which was a public authority in withdrawing the provisional order of employment was arbitrary and was liable to be quashed. The said decision having been taken unilaterally, without affording to the petitioner appropriate opportunity, was liable to be quashed.
(3.) THE respondents would state that the first letter of provisional appointment did not give to the petitioner a right to be recruited. The employer had a right to check on the antecedents of a prospective employee and they could act on the statement of persons, who had given the references. The respondents would disclose that they had sought for reports touching on conduct and antecedents through a Chief Vigilance Officer and the person against whom an adverse report was forthcoming could not be given any appointment. In this case, R.M. Jain whose reference of 'good conduct' had been submitted by the petitioner, had later reported that the petitioner was not a person of good conduct and character. The respondents had come by information that the petitioner had been involved in two criminal cases lodged against him in FIR Nos. 621 of 1986 and 342 of 1987. While in one case, the petitioner had been bailed out and in yet another case, he was still arrayed as accused. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that so long as there had been no criminal conviction rendered against the petitioner, the respondents could not have denied to him appointment. According to him, a mere registration of a complaint cannot be a ground for denying a person a right to public appointment. The respondents, on the other hand, have filed the copy of the application form submitted by the petitioner that showed that he had cited Shri R.M. Jain as one of the persons, who was to give a testimonial to his good conduct and also refers to the fact that the petitioner was making a declaration that the details contained in the petition were true but against the column B - 8 seeking for details of whether he had been charged for any criminal offence, the petitioner had entered "N.A." which was patently false.;