# Akhilesh Kumar @ Babloo v. Commandant, 47 P.A.C. Vahini (Task Force), Bareilly & Ors

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1196
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-08-03
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38098 of 1994
- **Bench:** Rajes Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akhilesh-kumar-babloo-v-commandant-47-p-a-c-vahini-task-force-bareilly-ors-42372
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,Article
226cancellation of appointment-on ground
of false declaration in affidavit as no
criminal case pending against him-on
verification it was found the F.I.R. Was
lodged in which petitioner also a coaccused-while in charge sheet as well as
in order sheet and character certificate
issued by D.M.-petitioner no where in
existence
in
list
of
accused-when
petitioner not aware with the fact of
F.I.R.-no question of false decelerationpetition
allowed-consequential
directions given.

Held: Para 21

In the present case along with the
supplementary affidavit the petitioner
has filed the entire proceedings before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate to show
that at any stage, no summon or notice
has been issued to the petitioner. It was
3 All] Akhilesh Kumar @ Babloo V. Commandant, 47 P.A.C. Vahini (Task Force), Bareilly & Ors
1197
averred that the petitioner was not
aware about the alleged FIR and the
criminal proceeding. These averments of
the supplementary affidavit have not
been disputed. It is undisputed that in
the
chargesheet
the
name
of
the
petitioner
was
not
mentioned.
On
enquiry, it was found that his name has
been falsely implicated. On these facts it
can be believed that the petitioner was
not aware about the alleged FIR and the
alleged criminal proceeding. When the
petitioner was not aware about the
alleged FIR and criminal proceeding it
was not expected from him to disclose
about such proceeding. Thus, on these
facts it cannot be said to be a case of
wilful and deliberate misrepresentation
on the part of the petitioner. Moreover,
the respondent no. 1 has sought the
report about the character verification
and the certificate from the District
Magistrate. The District Magistrate in his
reports
dated
20.10.1994
and
15.11.1994 has categorically certified
the character of the petitioner and has
observed that he is suitable for the
services of the State and the Central
Government. There is no contrary finding
on record.
Case law discussed:
Civil Appeal No. 7106 of 2011, Ram Kumar Vs.
State of U.P. & others, decided on 19.8.2011;
Special Appeal No. 1991 of 2011, Satyendra
Singh, Recruit Constable Vs. State of U.P. and
others; JT 2011 (3) SC 484; Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 47984 of 2010; Amit Kumar,
Recruit Constable Vs. State of U.P. and others,
decided on 2.5.2011; 1997 SCC (L& S ) 492;
(2003) 3 SCC 437; AIR 2008 SC page 1083
(2008) SCC 222

## Text

1196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
involved in the alleged malpractice.
When such type of decisions are to be
taken by any authority, it has to be very
much cautious about passing of such
drastic order of blacklisting the entire
fleet. When the respondents themselves
are adjudicators, they should be sincere in
coming to appropriate conclusion so that
the order of blacklisting may not seem to
be disproportionate."

10. Thus, in totality, we find that the
petitioners succeed in first issue and also
in the additional issue but do not succeed
in the second issue. Therefore, our overall
view is that the writ petition should not be
treated as dismissed but as disposed of.
Opportunity of hearing will be given to
the petitioners by the enquiry committee.
Since
admittedly
the
period
of
blacklisting for two years has already
ended by 16th September, 2012, the entire
fleet of the petitioners are free to render
their business. However, the involved
vehicle, being TT No. UP 80 BJ 9458,
and the vehicle apprehended to be
involved, being TT No. UP 78 AN 2061,
can be called upon in case of enquiry by
giving opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners and that too within a limited
period, which by no means will go
beyond one month from the date of
communication of this order .

11.

Accordingly,
the
review
application is disposed of, however,
without any order as to costs.

12. However, passing of this order
will in no way affect the petitioners' right,
if any, to proceed before the appropriate
Court/ forum/authority independently in
accordance with law, if any further
development has taken place between the
period from reserving the judgement and
its pronouncement.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38098 of 1994

Akhilesh Kumar @ Babloo
...Petitioner.
Versus
Commandant, 47 P.A.C. Vahini (Task
Force), Bareilly & Ors
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.C. Katiyar
Sri Umesh Chandra Mishra
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri Sharad Chandra
Sri V.K. Katiyar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,Article
226cancellation of appointment-on ground
of false declaration in affidavit as no
criminal case pending against him-on
verification it was found the F.I.R. Was
lodged in which petitioner also a coaccused-while in charge sheet as well as
in order sheet and character certificate
issued by D.M.-petitioner no where in
existence
in
list
of
accused-when
petitioner not aware with the fact of
F.I.R.-no question of false decelerationpetition
allowed-consequential
directions given.

Held: Para 21

In the present case along with the
supplementary affidavit the petitioner
has filed the entire proceedings before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate to show
that at any stage, no summon or notice
has been issued to the petitioner. It was
3 All] Akhilesh Kumar @ Babloo V. Commandant, 47 P.A.C. Vahini (Task Force), Bareilly & Ors
1197
averred that the petitioner was not
aware about the alleged FIR and the
criminal proceeding. These averments of
the supplementary affidavit have not
been disputed. It is undisputed that in
the
chargesheet
the
name
of
the
petitioner
was
not
mentioned.
On
enquiry, it was found that his name has
been falsely implicated. On these facts it
can be believed that the petitioner was
not aware about the alleged FIR and the
alleged criminal proceeding. When the
petitioner was not aware about the
alleged FIR and criminal proceeding it
was not expected from him to disclose
about such proceeding. Thus, on these
facts it cannot be said to be a case of
wilful and deliberate misrepresentation
on the part of the petitioner. Moreover,
the respondent no. 1 has sought the
report about the character verification
and the certificate from the District
Magistrate. The District Magistrate in his
reports
dated
20.10.1994
and
15.11.1994 has categorically certified
the character of the petitioner and has
observed that he is suitable for the
services of the State and the Central
Government. There is no contrary finding
on record.
Case law discussed:
Civil Appeal No. 7106 of 2011, Ram Kumar Vs.
State of U.P. & others, decided on 19.8.2011;
Special Appeal No. 1991 of 2011, Satyendra
Singh, Recruit Constable Vs. State of U.P. and
others; JT 2011 (3) SC 484; Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 47984 of 2010; Amit Kumar,
Recruit Constable Vs. State of U.P. and others,
decided on 2.5.2011; 1997 SCC (L& S ) 492;
(2003) 3 SCC 437; AIR 2008 SC page 1083
(2008) SCC 222

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.)

1. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondent
nos. 1 and 2 to admit the petitioner in the
batch selected on 2.8.1994 as Police
P.A.C. Constables and direct to join as
such.

2. The brief facts of the case are that
in
pursuance
of
the
advertisement
published in the month of May-June, 1994
for the recruitment of the Police/P.A.C.
Constables the petitioner applied. On
2.8.1994 the petitioner underwent various
tests in the Police Lines, Farrukhabad,
namely, written test, measurement test,
medical test and interview. The petitioner
cleared all the tests and has been called
upon by the 37, P.A.C. Vahini (Task
Force) Bareilly between 6.9.1994 to
11.9.1994. It is the contention of the
petitioner
that
out
of
the
selected
candidates, 80 have been asked to join the
47 P.A.C. Vahini (Task Force) Bareilly for
training but 9 candidates, including the
petitioner were refused enrolment, six of
whom were under height and three on the
basis of character verification. The joining
of the petitioner has been withheld on the
ground that a criminal case no. 265A of
1994 was pending against him and for that
a report was called from respondent no. 3.
For character verification Sri R.N. Singh,
Sub-Divisional Magistrate was authorized
to discharge the function of the District
Magistrate and he called for a report from
the D.G.C. (Criminal) Farrukhabad. The
D.G.C. (Criminal) Farrukhabad submitted
a copy of the chargesheet in case crime no.
265 A of 1994 in which 8 persons were
chargesheeted and the petitioner's name
was no where there. The copy of the
chargesheet dated 4.8.1994 is Annexure-1
to the writ petition.

3. It appears that a clarification has
been sought that why the petitioner's name
had not figured in the chargesheet. The
Police Station on 27.8.1994 submitted the
report stating therein that the case against
the petitioner was found false in the
investigation so his name was dropped in
the
chargesheet.
Thereafter,
the
1198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
Commandant, 47 P.A.C. Vahini (Task
Force), Bareilly, directed the Senior
Superintendent Police to obtain the opinion
of the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad on
the point. It appears that Sri R.N. Singh,
S.D.M., In-charge District Magistrate vide
his letter dated 20.9.1994 asked the D.G.C.
(Criminal) for opinion whether on the facts
and circumstances the petitioner is suitable
for the Government service or not. On the
said letter itself the D.G.C. (Criminal)
Farrukhabad has given his opinion on
21.9.1994 that as per the police report there
is no criminal case pending against the
petitioner and the case, which was
registered, was found false hence in my
opinion he is suitable for the State service.
On the instruction of respondent no. 1,
respondent no. 3 has recorded the
statement of the petitioner on 20.9.1994. In
the statement it is stated that a false FIR
was lodged in which the name of the
petitioner was mentioned and on inquiry
the involvement of the petitioner was
found false and accordingly in the charge
sheet the name of the petitioner has not
been stated. However, it is stated that no
case is pending in any of the court. By the
letter dated 20.10.1994 Sri R.N. Singh,
Incharge District Magistrate sent all the
necessary
papers
to
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad and
further expressed his opinion that the
petitioner is suitable for the Government
service. He further stated that for the
purposes of the verification of the
character and issue of certificate in this
regard he has been authorized by the
District Magistrate. When the S.S.P.,
Farrukhabad required the opinion for the
signature
of
the
District
Magistrate
himself, the District Magistrate by his
letter dated 15.11.1994 wrote a letter
agreeing with the view of Sri R.N. Singh,
Incharge District Magistrate and further
certified the character of the petitioner and
expressed his opinion that he is suitable for
the
Government
service.
It
is
the
contention of the petitioner that despite the
character certificate was being issued by
the District Magistrate and the fact that the
petitioner was found suitable for the
Government service the petitioner has not
been sent for training and has not been
allowed to join. At this stage the petitioner
filed the present writ petition.

4. On 30.11.1994 while entertaining
the writ petition and directing the the
respondents to file counter affidavit, this
Court has passed an interim order directing
the respondents that the "name of the
petitioner shall be sent for police training.
The petitioner shall, however, not be
issued appointment letter till further orders
of this Court." The writ petition has been
admitted on 3.8.1995. The matter was
taken up on 3.8.1995. It was contended on
behalf of the petitioner that in spite of the
order
dated
30.11.1994,
which
was
communicated to the respondent on
8.12.1994, the name of the petitioner has
not been sent for the aforesaid training.
This Court further directed the respondents
to comply with the order dated 30.11.1994
within ten days.

5. Counter and rejoinder affidavits
have been exchanged.

6. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj
Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that in the FIR the name of the
petitioner has wrongly been mentioned
though the petitioner was not at all
involved. The FIR was lodged on
3 All] Akhilesh Kumar @ Babloo V. Commandant, 47 P.A.C. Vahini (Task Force), Bareilly & Ors
1199
15.5.1994. A supplementary affidavit has
been filed annexing the ordersheet of the
proceedings before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate to show that at no point of time
any summon or notice has been issued to
the petitioner. The averment in this regard
has been made in the supplementary
affidavit dated 21.7.1995. This averment is
not disputed. The petitioner was not at all
aware about any FIR lodged against him or
any
proceeding
pending
before
the
criminal court against him. In the
chargesheet the name of the petitioner was
not mentioned inasmuch as on inquiry it
was found that the name of the petitioner
has been falsely implicated. An affidavit
was given on 20.8.1994 stating therein that
no criminal case is pending against him
under the bonafide belief inasmuch as the
petitioner was not aware about the alleged
criminal case. He submitted that the
District Magistrate is the competent
authority to issue the character verification
certificate. In the character verification
certificate, as referred herein above, it has
been categorically stated that the petitioner
was not found involved in criminal
proceeding and he is suitable for the
Government service. Once this certificate
has been given by the District Magistrate,
who alone is the competent to issue the
certificate, no other authority has a
jurisdiction to dispute and sit over the
certificate of the District Magistrate. The
only requirement for the Government
service is that the person should be suitable
for the Government post after the character
verification
and
once
the
District
Magistratre,
who
is
the
competent
authority, has given the certificate, there is
no reason to deny the appointment to the
petitioner. Reliance has been placed on a
recent decision of the Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No. 7106 of 2011, Ram Kumar Vs.
State of U.P. & others, decided on
19.8.2011 which has been followed by the
Division Bench in Special Appeal No.
1991 of 2011, Satyendra Singh, Recruit
Constable Vs. State of U.P. and others.
He also placed reliance on the decision of
the
Apex
Court
in
the
case
of
Commissioner of Police and others Vs.
Sandeep Kumar, reported in JT 2011 (3)
SC 484 and the decision of the learned
Single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 47984 of 2010, Amit
Kumar, Recruit Constable Vs. State of
U.P. and others, decided on 2.5.2011.

8.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
submitted that for the purposes of the
verification of character and antecedent,
the petitioner was required to submit
affidavit. In the affidavit a categorical
declaration has been made by the petitioner
that against him neither any case has been
registered nor any criminal case is pending
against him. However, on verification it
was found that a criminal case was
pending.
Preliminary
inquiry
was
conducted and it was found that wrong
declaration has been made by the petitioner
hence the petitioner could not be sent for
training. Iit is very much clear that at the
time of filing of the affidavit, the criminal
case was pending against the petitioner. In
the aforesaid affidavit, it has been clearly
mentioned that in case any of the
averments mentioned in the affidavit is
found incorrect then candidature of the
petitioner would be cancelled without any
notice and in this background as the
declaration which was made in the
affidavit has been found incorrect and
wrong declaration has been made by the
petitioner, the petitioner's services has been
dispensed with by cancellation of his
appointment.
1200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

9. He placed reliance on the decisions
of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi
Administration
Vs.
Sushil
Kumar,
reported in 1997 SCC (L& S) 492 and in
the
case
of
Kendriya
Vidyalaya
Sangathan and others Vs. Ram Ratan
Yadav, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 437.

10. I have considered the rival
submissions and perused record.

11. In the case of State of Haryana
Vs. Dinesh Kumar, reported in AIR 2008
SC page 1083 (2008) SCC 222, the Apex
Court held that there has to be deliberate
and wilful misrepresentation, and in case
the applicant was not aware of his
involvement in any criminal case or
pendency of any criminal prosecution
against him, then it cannot be held that he
made misrepresentation. In the said case
information sought was as to whether he
has ever been arrested, and the applicant
thererin was wanted in criminal case and
had got stay order fro the Court, in this
background information was furnished in
negative the Hon'ble Apex Court took the
view that it may be case of mistake
impression but not the case is deliberate
impression.

12.

In
the
case
of
Delhi
Administration Vs. Sushil Kumar (Supra),
the Apex Court held as follows:

"Verification of the character and
antecedents is one of the important
criteria to text whether the selected
candidates is suitable to a post under the
State. Though the respondent was found
physically fit, passed the written test and
interview and was provisionally selected.
On account of his antecedent record, the
appointing authority found it is not
desirable to appoint a person of such
record as a Constable in the discipline
force. The view taken by the appointing
authority in the background of the case
cannot be said to be unwarranted. The
Tribunal,
therefore,
was
wholly
unjustified in giving the directing for
reconsideration of his case. Though he
was discharged or acquitted of the
criminal offences, the same has nothing
to do with the question. What would be
relevant is the conduct of character of
the candidate to be appointed to a
service and not the actual result thereof.
If the actual result happened to be in a
particular way the law will take care of
the consequences."

13. In the case of Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangthan Vs. Ram Ratan
Yadav (Supra) the Apex Court held as
follows:

"It is not in dispute that the
criminal case registered under Sections
323, 341, 294, 506-B read with Section
34 IPC was pending on the date when
the respondent filed the attestation
from. Hence, the information given by
the respondent as against columns 12
and 13 as "No is plainly suppression of
material information and it is also a
false
statement......................The
requirement of filling columns 12 and 13
of the attestation form was for the
purpose of verification of character and
antecedents of the respondent as on the
date of filling and attestation of the
form.
Suppression
of
material
information
and
making
a
false
statement has a clear bearing on the
character
and
antecedents
of
the
respondent
in
relation
to
his
continuance in service.
3 All] Akhilesh Kumar @ Babloo V. Commandant, 47 P.A.C. Vahini (Task Force), Bareilly & Ors
1201

The object of requiring information
in columns 12 and 13 of the attestation
form and certification thereafter by the
candidate was to ascertain and verify
the character and antecedents to judge
his suitability to continue in service. A
candidate having suppressed material
information
and/or
giving
false
information cannot claim right to
continue in service. The employer
having
regard
to
the
nature
of
employment and all other aspects had
the direction to terminate his services,
which is made expressly clear in para 9
of the offer of appointment. The purpose
of seeking information as per columns
12 and 13 was not to find out either the
nature or gravity of the offence or the
result of the criminal case ultimately.
The information in the said columns was
sought with a view to judge the
character
and
antecedents
of
the
respondent to continue in service or not.
The High Court, in our view, has failed
to see this aspect of the matter. It went
wrong in saying that the criminal case
had been subsequently withdrawn and
that
the
offences,
in
which
the
respondent was alleged to have been
involved, were also not of serious nature.
In the present case the respondent was
to serve as a Physical Education
Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya. The
character, conduct and antecedents of a
teacher will have some impact on the
minds of the students of impressionable
age. The appellants having considered
all the aspects passed the order of
dismissal of the respondent from service.
The Tribunal after due consideration
rightly recorded a finding of fact in
upholding the order of dismissal passed
by the appellants. The High Court was
clearly in error in upsetting the order of
the Tribunal. The High Court was again
not right in taking note of the
withdrawal of the case by the State
Government and that the case was not
of a serious nature to set aside the order
of the Tribunal on the ground as well.
The respondent accepted the offer of
appointment subject to the terms and
conditions mentioned therein with his
eyes wide open. Para 9 of the said
memorandum extracted above in clear
terms kept the respondent informed that
the suppression of any information may
lead to dismissal from service. In the
attestation form, the respondent has
certified that the information given by
him is correct and complete to the best
of his knowledge and belief; if he could
not understand and contents of columns
12 and 13, he could not certify so.
Having certified that the information
given by him is correct and complete, his
version cannot be accepted. The order of
termination of services clearly shows
that there has been due consideration of
various aspects. In this view, the
agreement of the learned counsel for the
respondent that as per para 9 of the
memorandum,
the
termination
of
service was not automatic, cannot be
accepted."

14. In the case of Ram Kumar Vs.
State of U.P. and others (Supra) the
appellant applied for the post of Constable.
He was selected and appointed as a male
constable
and
deputed
for
training.
Thereafter it was reported that a criminal
case was registered against the appellant
and the said criminal case has been
disposed of by the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Etawah on 18.7.2002
and the appellant was acquitted by the
Court. However, in his affidavit dated
12.6.2006 it was averred that no criminal
case was pending. The appointment of the
1202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
petitioner has been cancelled. The writ
petition filed against the cancellation of the
appointment has been dismissed by the
learned Single Judge and said order has
been confirmed in Special Appeal by the
Division Bench. Being aggrieved by the
order of the Division Bench, Special Leave
to Appeal No. 7162 of 2011 has been filed.
The Apex Court has held as follows:

"We
have
carefully read
the
Government Order dated 28.4.1958 on
the subject 'Verification of the character
and antecedent of government servants
before their first appointment' and it is
stated in the Government order that the
Governor has been pleased to lay down
the
following
instructions
in
supercession of all the previous orders:

"The rule regarding character of
candidate for appointment under the
State Government shall continue to be
as follows:

The character of a candidate for
direct appointment must be such as to
render him suitable in all respects for
employment in the service or post to
which he is to be appointed. It would be
duty of the appointing authority to
satisfy itself on this point."

It will be clear from the aforesaid
instructions issued by the Governor that
the object of the verification of the
character
and
antecedents
of
government servants before their first
appointment is to ensure that the
character of a government servant for a
direct recruitment is such as to render
him
suitable
in
all
respects
for
employment in the service or post to
which he is to be appointed and it would
be a duty of the appointing authority to
satisfy itself on this point.

The order dated 18.7.2002 of the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
had been sent along with the report
dated 15.1.2007 of the Jaswant Nagar
Police
Station
to
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad,
but it appears from the order dated
8.8.2007 of the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Ghaziabad, that he has not gone
into the question as to whether the
appellant was suitable for appointment
to service or to the post of constable in
which he was appointed and he has only
held that the selection of the appellant
was illegal and irregular because he did
not furnish in his affidavit in the
proforma of verification roll that a
criminal case has been registered
against him. As has been stated in the
instructions in the Government Order
dated 28.4.1958, it was the duty of the
Senior
Superintendent
of
Police,
Ghaziabad, as the appointing authority,
to satisfy himself on the point as to
whether the appellant was suitable for
appointment to the post of a constable,
with
reference
to
the
nature
of
suppression and nature of the criminal
case. Instead of considering whether the
appellant was suitable for appointment
to the post of male constable, the
appointing authority has mechanically
held that his selection was irregular and
illegal
because
the
appellant
had
furnished an affidavit stating the facts
incorrectly at the time of recruitment.

In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
and others vs. Ram Ratan Yadav
(Supra) relied on by the respondents, a
criminal case had been registered under
Sections 323, 341, 294, 506-B read with
Section 34 IPC and was pending against
3 All] Akhilesh Kumar @ Babloo V. Commandant, 47 P.A.C. Vahini (Task Force), Bareilly & Ors
1203
the respondent in that case and the
respondent had suppressed this material
in the attestation form. The respondent,
however, contended that the criminal
case was subsequently withdrawn and
the offences in which the respondent
was alleged to have been involved were
also not of serious nature. On these
facts,
this
Court
held
that
the
respondent was to serve as a Physical
Education
Teacher
in
Kendriya
Vidyalaya and he could not be suitable
for appointment as the character,
conduct and antecedents of a teacher
will have some impact on the minds of
the students of impressionable age and if
the authorities had dismissed him from
service
for
suppressing
material
information in the attestation form, the
decision of the authorities could not be
interfered with by the High Court. The
facts of the case in Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan and others Vs. Ram Ratan
Yadav (Supra) are therefore materially
different from the facts of the present
case and the decision does not squarely
cover the case of the appellant as has
been held by the High Court.

For the aforesaid reasons, we allow
the appeal, set aside the order of the
learned Single Judge and the impugned
order of the Division Bench and allow
the writ petition of the appellant and
quash the order dated 8.8.2007 of the
Senior
Superintendent
of
Police,
Ghaziabad. The appellant will be taken
back in service within a period of two
months from today but he will not be
entitled to any back wages for the period
he has remained out of service. There
shall be no order as to costs."

15. The Apex Court has considered
and distinguished the decision in the case
of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and
others vs. Ram Ratan Yadav (Supra) in
the manner referred herein above.

16. In the case of Commissioner of
Police and others Vs. Sandeep Kumar
(Supra), the Apex Court has taken a view
that cancellation of candidature to the post
of temporary Head Constable for the
suppression and failure to disclose in the
verification roll/ application about his
involvement in an incident resulting in a
criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC
when the candidate was a young man, was
not justified. In the said case, the matter
was finally compromised and the candidate
was acquitted.

17. The Division Bench of this Court
in Special Appeal No. 1991 of 2011,
Satyendra Singh, Recruit Constable Vs.
State of U.P. and others wherein the
appointment
of
the
petitioner
was
cancelled on the ground that at the time of
recruitment he filed false affidavit in
relation to column provided for declaration
in respect of criminal cases registered or
pending against him as he failed to disclose
the case crime no. 137A of 2001, under
Sections 336, 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC
in which vide judgment and order dated
13.9.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Etawah the petitioner was
acquitted following the decision in the case
of Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. (Supra)
referred herein above, has held the
cancellation
of
the
appointment
as
unjustified.

18. In my view character and
antecedent of the person is an important
aspect to be considered at the time of
giving the appointment in a Government
service. Little lapse and compromise in this
regard may lead to a serious consequences.
Therefore, before giving the appointment
1204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
there should be micro scrutiny of the
character and antecedent. It is equally
important that the person to whom
appointment is being given should come
with clean hand. There should not be any
deliberate and wilful misrepresentation,
concealment of fact and disclosure of
incorrect fact, on the part of person
concerned, and if it so happens such person
should be dealt with strong hand to set the
example for others and may not be
considered for Government service.

19. Foundation of police or any other
force is based on discipline, faithfulness,
sincerity and honesty. These forces, all
time are accountable to public at large. If
any one of the above is missing, system
can not work and is bound to collapse.
Therefore, in case of appointment in police
or any other force character and antecedent
has to be strictly examined. If a person of
criminal background is appointed as police
personnel
one
can
understand
its
consequences.

20. From the above, in my view the
following position emerges :

(1) The object of the verification of
the character and antecedent of the
Government servants before their first
appointment is to ensure that the character
of the Government servants for a direct
recruitment must be such as to render him
suitable in all respect for employment in
the service or post to which he is to be
appointed and it would be duty of the
appointing authority to satisfy itself on this
point.

(2) It is necessary to examine whether
there
was
deliberate
and
wilful
misrepresentation and concealment of fact.
Whether
the
misrepresentation
was
deliberate and wilful and the petitioner was
aware about his involvement in any
criminal case or pendency of any criminal
prosecution against him. If the answer is
negative then it cannot be said that the
person made misrepresentation, but if the
answer is in affirmative then it is a case of
misrepresentation and such person should
not be appointed and strict action should be
taken for such misrepresentation and
concealment of fact.

21. In the present case along with the
supplementary affidavit the petitioner has
filed the entire proceedings before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate to show that at
any stage, no summon or notice has been
issued to the petitioner. It was averred that
the petitioner was not aware about the
alleged FIR and the criminal proceeding.
These averments of the supplementary
affidavit have not been disputed. It is
undisputed that in the chargesheet the
name of the petitioner was not mentioned.
On enquiry, it was found that his name has
been falsely implicated. On these facts it
can be believed that the petitioner was not
aware about the alleged FIR and the
alleged criminal proceeding. When the
petitioner was not aware about the alleged
FIR and criminal proceeding it was not
expected from him to disclose about such
proceeding. Thus, on these facts it cannot
be said to be a case of wilful and deliberate
misrepresentation on the part of the
petitioner. Moreover, the respondent no. 1
has sought the report about the character
verification and the certificate from the
District Magistrate. The District Magistrate
in his reports dated 20.10.1994 and
15.11.1994 has categorically certified the
character of the petitioner and has
observed that he is suitable for the services
of the State and the Central Government.
There is no contrary finding on record.
3 All] Suryajeet Rajbhar and another V. State of U.P. and others
1205

22. In view of the foregoing
discussion, I am of the view that the
respondent no. 1 is not justified in
withholding the appointment of the
petitioner. In case if the petitioner has not
been sent for training he may be sent
immediate thereof in case if he has
completed the training in pursuance of the
direction of this Court, he may be allowed
to join the post. However, the petitioner is
not entitled for the salary for the period
during which he has not worked. The
respondent no. 1 is directed to comply the
aforesaid direction within two weeks from
the date of production of certified copy of
this order.

23. The writ petition stands allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.09.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45155 of 2012

Suryajeet Rajbhar and another

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Chief Secy. And Others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Tara Chand Kaushal
Sri L.D. Rajbhar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 341, 342Declaration of the Caste 'Bhar' equivalent
to Scheduled Tribes-reliance placed upon
caste certificate issued by the state
authority-held-in absence of presidential
notification-no such relief could be granted
even by Writ Court.
Held: Para 12

The certificate recites that the community
of
the
petitioners
is
being
treated
equivalent to a scheduled tribe. In the
opinion of the Court the certificate cannot
travel
beyond
the
Presidential
Notification.Treating a denotified tribe
equivalent to a scheduled tribe for the
purpose of any benefit by the State does
not amount to a declaration that the
denotified tribe is a Scheduled Tribe which
is also beyond the powers of the State
Government. The contention, therefore, of
the learned Standing Counsel is correct
that the relief as prayed for to treat the
petitioners as scheduled tribe cannot be
granted by the Court.
Case law discussed:
2005 Volume (1) AWC Page 811; 2005 AWC
(5) Page 4298; 2010 Volume 10 ADJ Page 390

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Sri L.D. Rajbhar and Sri
Tara Chand Kaushal, learned counsel for
the petitioners and perused the records.

2. These two petitioners before this
Court are aggrieved by the action of the
Respondents not allowing the petitioners
to attend the counselling which was
scheduled to be held with effect from 14th
July, 2012 in relation to engineering
courses to which admission is granted
under a joint entrance examination
conducted
by
the
respondent-State
Government.

3. The petitioners contend that they
have
qualified
in
the
entrance
examination but they further claimed the
benefit of reservation claiming themselves
to be belonging to the "Bhar" caste which
according to them is a denotified tribe and
is of the same status and equivalent to a
Scheduled Tribe.