Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS herein are selected candidates on the posts of Constables (GD) in the Police Department, Haryana and are alleging that despite their selection, they have not been deputed for training of Constables. It is their contention that the State of Haryana advertised 3700 posts of Constables (GD) on 2nd May, 2006. The last date for submission of applications, as per the advertisement, was 24th May, 2006 and in pursuance thereto, both the Petitioners submitted their applications. They cleared the physical examination test and the interview for the said test and their names found mentioned in the select list published in the month of April, 2007 in general category of District Karnal as Constables (GD). The registration number of the Petitioner No. 1 was 1033 and that of Petitioner No. 2 was 46. Thereafter, the Petitioners were called for the medical examination where the Petitioners were cleared and ultimately the names of the Petitioners were sent for character verifications. Candidates selected along with the Petitioners as Constables (GD), who were lower in merit to the Petitioners, were conferred with the constabulary number and sent for training for nine months as prescribed in the rules. The Petitioners were neither conferred with constabulary number nor were they sent for training. On enquiry, the Petitioners were informed orally by the office of the Inspector General of Police that there are cases registered against them, which are pending trial, therefore, they cannot be allotted the constabulary number nor they can be deputed for the training.
(2.) THE Petitioners contend that Rule 12.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to the State of Haryana and amended by Notification dated 18th June, 2002, provides that a candidate, who has been convicted for any offence under any law, under moral turpitude, as specified in the Government Instructions from time to time, is only debarred for consideration for appointment as Constable under the Rules. As regards the Petitioners, they are not considered for appointment as Constables only for FIRs pending against them and that too came into existence after all the tests and interviews, as prescribed under the Rules, have been completed. Petitioner No. 1 contends that FIR No. 606 dated 23rd November, 2006 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324 and 506 IPC, Police Station City Thanesar was registered against him in which Section 307 was added later on. He further contends that it was a fight between college students and no where the name of the Petitioner has been mentioned but he has been arrayed as an accused in the challan presented to the Court. Petitioner No. 2 contends that FIR No. 39 dated 23rd March, 2007 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 452 IPC, Police Station Taraori was registered against him in which Section 307 was added later on. It is the contention of this Petitioner that this FIR came into existence because of enmity between the villagers and he has been arrayed as an accused because of that. The case is totally false in which the Petitioner has been made a scapegoat. It is the further contention of both the Petitioners that none of the offences alleged against the Petitioners involves moral turpitude and, therefore, does not debar them from being appointed as per the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to the State of Haryana. It is the contention of the Petitioners that in any case, since the Petitioners have not been convicted, what to say of offences involving moral turpitude, the Respondents cannot deny the Petitioners the appointment to the posts of Constables under the Rules. Upon notice having been issued, the Respondents have filed their reply, therein the facts, as mentioned by the Petitioners, are not in dispute. The only contention raised by the Respondents in their reply is that at the time of verifications of character antecedents of the Petitioners, it was found that the case registered against the Petitioner No. 1 (Ramnik Kumar) was still pending in the court at Kurukshetra and the case registered against Petitioner No. 2 (Arvind Rana) was still pending in the court at Karnal. It is stand of the Respondents that in this regard, instructions dated 2nd July, 2007 issued by the Director General of Police, Haryana, are very clear as they state that "All those candidates, who are facing trial for any criminal offences, will not be considered for appointment as a Constable", copy of these instructions has been appended as Annexure R -I. It has further been submitted that the above noted instructions stand modified, - -vide instructions dated 31st November, 2007 in cases of candidates involved in cases of moral turpitude, copy of these instructions is appended as Annexure R -II. Placing reliance upon these two instructions, the Respondents contend that the Petitioners could not be considered for appointment as Constables.
(3.) DURING the pendency of this writ petition, both the Petitioners, who are facing trial in their respective FI Rs as mentioned above, have been acquitted. Ramnik Kumar (Petitioner No. 1) stands acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, - -vide his judgment dated 25th July, 2008 and Arvind Rana (Petitioner No. 2) stands acquitted, - -vide judgment dated 11th June, 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. The Petitioners have placed the said judgments on record as Annexures P -4 and P -3 respectively. Relying on the said judgments, the Petitioners contend that they stand acquitted by the trial court and the perusal of the judgments would show that no evidence has come forth during the trial, which could support the prosecution case and no incriminating material has been brought on record by the prosecution. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused and they have been acquitted of the charges framed against them. The Petitioners have also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 14028 of 2003 titled as Lalit Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors. decided on 27th February, 2004 to contend that merely because the Petitioners have been acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt, it should not be per se taken as a bar for appointment to the posts of Constables without going into the merits of the case. They further rely upon another Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 17043 of 2007 titled as Pardeep Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors. decided on 2nd May, 2008 to contend that after their acquittal in the criminal case, which does not involve moral turpitude, the candidates must be appointed to the posts of Constables.;