Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajbeer Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 October, 2024
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:130948-DB
LPA-1706-2019
2019 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
LPA
LPA-1706-2019 (O&M)
Reserved on ::-24.09.2024
Date of Decision : 03.10.2024
Rajbeer Singh ....Appellant
VERSUS
State of Punjab and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Angel Walia, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
-.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.
The present appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 25.04.2019
passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-2136
CWP 2136-2017 titled as ‘Rajbeer Singh
Others’, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant
Vs. State of Punjab & Others’,
seeking directions to the respondents to appoint him as C
Constable
onstable in District Police
Cadre, Ferozepur with effect from the date, persons lower to him in the selection
list were appointed,
appointed was dismissed.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case
case are as under:
under:-
(i) In June 2016, the respondents had advertised 7400 posts of
constable out of which certain posts were kept for District Cadre of
Police of District Ferozepur. The applications were to be submitted
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 03-11-2024 23:22:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:130948-DBLPA-1706-2019
2019 (O&M) -2-
online. The educational qualification was 10+2. Since the appellant
was found eligible,
eligible he was allotted Roll No.9110096 and was called
for physical test which he qualified. As per his performance and
position in merit, the appellant was found to be suitable and therefore,
he was
wa selected and allocated District Firozepur.
ii) After the appellant was selec
selected
ted and was found medically fit, he
was entitled to appoint as constable according to his merits. However,
the appellant was not offered the
the appointment despite the fact that all
a
the persons lower in merits were given appointments and that they
have duly joined on the post.
iii) On inquiry from the office of respondent No.3
No.3, it transpired that
the appellant has not been offered the appointment because his name
was found mentioned
ed in some criminal case.
iv) Thereafter, the appellant filed CWP
CWP-2136-2017 titled as
‘Rajbeer Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Others’ which was dismissed
vide impugned judgment dated 25.04.2019. Hence the present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T
THE PARTIES
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that though two FIRs were
registered against the appellant, but he was acquitted in one and in the other case
compromise was effected between the parties and therefore, he is not facing any
criminal prosecution,
prosecution in any court of law. He further contends that the application
form was to be submitted online and it was filled by the owner of the cyber cafe,
who did not ask for any details in this regard and that is why against the columns,
columns
all information
n regarding,
regarding Whether
hether any FIR or criminal case has been registered;
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 03-11-2024 23:22:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:130948-DB
LPA-1706-2019
2019 (O&M) -3-
have you ever been arrested; have you ever been tried and convicted or acquitted,
acquitted
“NO” was filled by the owner of the cyber cafe
cafe. Therefore, there was no fault on
the part of appellant and there was no concealment of the facts by the appellant. In
support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgments passed in Civil Appeal
No.1430 of 2007 titled as “Commissioner of Police and others Vs. Sandeep
Kumar” and LPA No.320 of 2019 titled as
as “Haryana Staff Selection Commission
others”. Therefore, he prays that the present
through its Secretary Vs. Sarla and others”.
appeal be allowed and judgment dated 25.04.2019 passed by the learned Single
Judge be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for re
respondent-State
State contends that the
application form contains terms and conditions regarding the character of the
candidate as well as personal information and the appellant in his application
provided incorrect and wrong particulars. He further contends tha
thatt in the column
made for the purpose whether any FIR or criminal case has ever been registered
against you (candidate who applied for the post), the appellant has given the
answer as “No”. Further the column meant for “Are you facing any criminal
proceedings in any Court of law in India?”,
India? , tthe appellant had given answer as
“No”. He further contends that though the name of the appellant was in merit list
but before issuance of appointment letter for the post of constable, it was
incumbent upon the Department/employer
Department/employer to verify the character and antecedents
of the candidate, his medical check-up
check up report and verification of educational
qualification certificates and after verification it was found that the appellant was
involved in two FIRs. He further contends
contends that as per the terms and conditions of
the recruitment for the said post, it was duly recorded in the application form that
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 03-11-2024 23:22:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:130948-DB
LPA-1706-2019
2019 (O&M) -4-
the candidate shall fill the correct information and an undertaking is given by the
candidate that in case any information furnished
furnished is found to be false or incomplete
or any material information is found to be concealed by him, his candidature may
be cancelled and he understands that no claim whatsoever shall be entertained in
this regard afterwards. The
The appellant concealed the registration of FIRs against
him. Therefore, he contends that learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the
writ petition filed by the appellant and the present appeal be dismissed.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole
record of this case.
6. Relevant portion of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge
is reproduced as under:-
under:
“…………………… I find substance in the plea. It appears that
there were two columns in the application ‘form’ seeking infor
information
mationwhether the candidate was involved in any FIR or criminal case and
whether he had ever been arrested/detained pursuant to same. In
answer to both the questions, petition relied “No”. Relevant part of
the application as reproduced in the affidavit is as under:-
Whether any FIR or criminal case has ever NO
been registered against you?
Have you ever been arrested/detained in any NO
criminal caseIn view of gross act of concealment, I am of the considered view
that petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for. Judgment in
Commissioner of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar, 2011(4)
SCC 644 is not applicable to the facts of the instant case as in the said
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 03-11-2024 23:22:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:130948-DBLPA-1706-2019
2019 (O&M) -5-case petitioner was ultimately acquitted and the candidate was not
involved in any serious offences. Thus, a lenient view was taken. In
the instant case, however, offences in cross
cross-version
version against thepetitioner are under Sections 307, 34
341,
1, 336, 427, 148, 149 IPC and25, 27 of Arms Act and in FIR No.172 dated 24.11.2015 under
Sections 364, 452, 342, 323, 148, 149 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the
Arms Act. It appears that trial is still pending. Ratio of judgment in
CWP No.14863 of 2017 titled as
a Sarla Vs. State of Haryana & Orsdecided on 31.10.2018 is also not attracted to the instant case as the
said case was related to mentioning of wrong category in the online
application form. Besides , petitioner, in said case, was a poor widow
lady working as an Anganwari Worker. She had filled up the online
application form through the help of cyber cafe in the village. She
was not computer/net savvy. However, petitioner in the instant case,
is an educated person. Besides, instant is a case of clear suppression
of information regarding involvement in crim
criminal
inal cases while seekingappointment in police force. There is, thus, no ground to interfere in
writ jurisdiction. Petition is hereby dismissed.”
7. A perusal of the record as well as impugned judgment of learned
Single Judge shows that the writ petition
petition filed by the appellant has rightly been
dismissed since the appellant concealed the true and relevant facts in the
application form by not providing particulars of the criminal cases registered
against him. He suppressed the material facts. Further as mentioned above, an
undertaking was given by him, after filling the application form in case any
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 03-11-2024 23:22:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:130948-DB
LPA-1706-2019
2019 (O&M) -6-
information furnished by him is found to be false or incomplete or any material
information is found to be concealed by him, his candidature may be cancelled and
a
he understands that no claim, whatsoever shall be entertained in this regard
afterwards. Further, the judgments relied upon by the appellant were relied upon
before the learned Single
Single Judge as well and we agree with the finding given by the
learned Single
gle Judge regarding the same.
8. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment
dated 25.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge. The same is upheld and the
present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
October 03, 2024
tripti
Whether speaking/non-speaking
speaking/non speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 03-11-2024 23:22:24 :::