- (1.) THE matter comes up on an application for early listing of the case. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally at this stage and disposed of.
(2.) THE petitioner, an aspirant for recruitment to the post of Constable, has laid this writ petition for quashing impugned letter/information dated 2nd of August 2013 (Annex.6), whereby it was conveyed that he has been denied appointment to the post of Constable for incurring certain disqualifications envisaged under the advertisement for the said recruitment. Apart from that, the petitioner has also sought a direction against the respondents to offer him appointment to the post of Constable. The facts, necessary and germane to the matter, are that an advertisement was issued by the 28th respondents on of September 2012 inviting applications for the post of General Constable and Driver through online process. In the advertisement, 89 vacancies were shown for general category, 31 for OBC, 2 for SBC, 23 for SC and 4 for ST, thus, total 149 posts were advertised. Being eligible, petitioner submitted his application and offered his candidature. During the process of selection, written examination was conducted and the petitioner appeared for the same on 21st of March 2013. After declaring him successful in the written examination, the respondents called upon him to appear for physical examination on 2nd of April 2013 and the petitioner was declared successful in the physical examination also on 4th of April 2013. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his documents for verification in the prescribed format and the verification roll. 2013, a combined select list for appointment to the post of Constable was issued by the respondents wherein petitioner's name appeared at Serial No.74. Pursuant to the select list, appointment orders were issued by the respondents on 29th May 2013 and 7th June 2013 but no such order was issued for the petitioner despite his higher merit position. On inquiry being made by the petitioner, no information was divulged by the respondents and therefore the petitioner made an attempt to solicit the requisite information in this behalf by way of resorting to Right to Information Act 2005. While dealing with the application of the petitioner, the impugned information dated 2nd of August 2013 was conveyed to the petitioner that despite his selection he has incurred disqualification as per clause (viii) and (ix) of Point No.9 (Disqualification for Appointment) of the advertisement dated 28th of September 2012. Precisely, in the advertisement, it was mentioned under the aforesaid clauses that an incumbent who has been convicted for offences involving moral turpitude shall not be eligible for appointment and further in terms of memorandum issued by the Director General of Police No.1687 dated 29.04.1995, if an incumbent involved in an offence involving moral turpitude and violent act has not been acquitted by a competent Court honorably he shall incur disqualification for appointment. The petitioner has very specifically pleaded in the writ petition that a criminal case was registered against him bearing case No.69 of 2008 wherein he was charged for offences under Section 341, 323/34 IPC but was ultimately acquitted for the said offences as a consequence of compromise with the complainant in terms of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The requisite documents of compromise and the order of acquittal is also enclosed with the writ petition. With these pleadings, the petitioner has urged that the reliefs desired by him are liable to be granted to him.
(3.) ON behalf of the respondents, reply to the writ petition is submitted. In the reply, the respondents have placed heavy reliance on the memorandum dated 29th of April 1995 and submitted that the same has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its verdict dated 10th of December 2009 rendered in Civil Appeal No.782/2004 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Saleem). It is also stated in the reply that the police services are services of disciplined force and therefore an incumbent involved in an offence involving moral turpitude is not suitable for such services. Categorizing the acquittal of the petitioner by way of compromise not akin to honorable acquittal, the respondents have submitted that the petitioner's case is covered by the memorandum aforesaid and therefore appointment cannot be given and the petition merits dismissal.;