SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE appellant original petitioner Chanan Ram belonging to Scheduled Caste applied for the post of Constable in the category of Scheduled Caste for Hanumangarh District in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11. 8. 97 which was lateron amended by an advertisement dated 16. 9. 1997. He was successful in written test and also physical efficiency, therefore, he was called for interview and selected for the post of Constable as per the select list published on 13. 12. 1997.
(2.) BY a letter dated 10. 3. 1998 he was asked to remain present on or before 31. 3. 1998 and accordingly, he presented himself on 24. 3. 1998, but on that day he was denied appointment on the ground that he concealed the fact of criminal case being registered against him which fact was not mentioned by him in column no. 17 of the application form. That order at Annex. P/5 was challenged by him before this Court by way of writ petition no. 1311/1998 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 27. 8. 1998. The same has been challenged in this special appeal. Learned counsel Shri H. S. Sidhu for the appellant-original petitioner frankly submitted that it was his mistake in not properly drafting the writ petition for the petitioner and unknowingly he took up the contention in para no. 6 regarding registration of FIR as he was under the bonafide impression that mere filing of FIR was not sufficient, particularly when in the instant case F. R. was filed in favour of the petitioner. He submitted that when the reply was filed by the respondents then the petitioner in his rejoinder in para no. 1 clearly pointed out that he was not in know of FIR filing of FIR against him when he filled up the application form. This fact was not controverted by the other side by way of filing sur-rejoinder. Going through the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner, it is clear that the learned Single Judge has mainly considered the averment made by the petitioner in para no. 6 of the writ petition about filing of writ petition. However, we must state that the learned Single Judge himself at page 10 of the judgment has clearly observed that:- " There is nothing on record to find out whether petitioner has wilfully suppressed it or not, particularly in view of the fact that petitioner failed to explain as under what circumstances he had filled-up that column answering it in negative. " The order was passed on the premise that the petitioner had delibrately suppressed the fact of FIR being registered against him for criminal offence. But, before passing of that order the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain as to whether he was in know of the FIR being registered against him or not. If prior notice was given in this case, then perhaps the petitioner would have pointed out that he was not at all aware of the FIR being registered against him. The fact that after investigation, without arresting the petitioner as an accused, the police filed F. R. in favour of the petitioner shows that the petitioner must not have been aware of the FIR being registered against him at the time when he filled-up the application form. In view of the above, as per the averments made by the petitioner in para no. 1 of rejoinder which remained uncontroverted and also the frank submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant at the bar that it was his mistake in not properly drafting the petition, particularly the averments made in para no. 6 of the petition, we are of the opinion that on peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that appellant petitioner was in know of FIR being registered against him when he filled up the application form. If he was not in know of the fact then there was no question of his stating the same fact in column no. 17 of the application form. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the impugned order at Annex. P/5 passed against the petitioner is required to be quashed and set aside. Similarly, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed the appellant petitioner is also required to be set aside.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, we allow this special appeal and accept the writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 31. 3. 1998 (Annex. P/5) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh qua the petitioner and direct him to appoint the appellant petitioner on the post of Constable forthwith and not later than 1. 9. 2000. .;