# P.B.R. No. 1326/2006 Mahtab Khan v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 705
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-07-19
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1882 of 2007
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/p-b-r-no-1326-2006-mahtab-khan-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41681
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art.-226-Cancellation
of Candidature- Petitioner fairly disclosed in
his application regarding pendency of
Criminal Case-appointment on post of
constable-on verification due to criminal
cases
candidature
cancelled-subsequent
fair acquitted-shall be presumed never
involved any criminal case-entitled for fresh
consideration for appointment-accordingly
direction issued.

Held: Para 12

However, in view of the subsequent
development
which
indicates
an
advantage in favour of the petitioner, in
my opinion, requires the matter to be
reconsidered in the light of the order of
acquittal. The petitioner after having
been acquitted will be presumed to have
never been involved in any criminal case.
A perusal of the judgement indicates
that it was a clean acquittal. The stain
having been erased on a judicial verdict
by the competent court washes out the
effect of involvement. This has to be
viewed from another angle. A person if
falsely implicated runs the risk of losing
the opportunity to get a job and it is here
that injustice should not be allowed to
dislodge an otherwise valid claim.

## Text

2 All] P.B.R. No. 1326/2006 Mahtab Khan V State of U.P. and others
705
perversity has been shown in the said
findings.

31. In view of the above discussion, we
are of the opinion that no substantial question
of law is involved in the present Appeal. The
Appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed,
and the same is accordingly dismissed.

32. However, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, there will be no
order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1882 of 2007

P.B.R. No. 1326/2006 Mahtab Khan

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sudhakar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vijendra Singh
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art.-226-Cancellation
of Candidature- Petitioner fairly disclosed in
his application regarding pendency of
Criminal Case-appointment on post of
constable-on verification due to criminal
cases
candidature
cancelled-subsequent
fair acquitted-shall be presumed never
involved any criminal case-entitled for fresh
consideration for appointment-accordingly
direction issued.

Held: Para 12

However, in view of the subsequent
development
which
indicates
an
advantage in favour of the petitioner, in
my opinion, requires the matter to be
reconsidered in the light of the order of
acquittal. The petitioner after having
been acquitted will be presumed to have
never been involved in any criminal case.
A perusal of the judgement indicates
that it was a clean acquittal. The stain
having been erased on a judicial verdict
by the competent court washes out the
effect of involvement. This has to be
viewed from another angle. A person if
falsely implicated runs the risk of losing
the opportunity to get a job and it is here
that injustice should not be allowed to
dislodge an otherwise valid claim.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner Sri Sudhakar Pandey and the
learned Standing Counsel.

2. Affidavits have been exchanged
between the parties and therefore the matter
is being disposed of finally at this stage.

3. The petitioner having been selected
as a constable for being appointed in the
Uttar Pradesh Police Services was subjected
to police verification. His verification report
was received to the effect that the petitioner
was involved in a criminal case prior to his
selection and therefore such involvement
does not entitle him to seek employment in
the police services. Accordingly, his
candidature was cancelled. The petitioner
made a representation which was not being
considered as a result whereof he filed writ
petition No. 69759 of 2006 which was
disposed of on 20th December, 2006 to
examine the claim of the petitioner and pass
an appropriate order.

4. In compliance of the aforesaid
direction the impugned order dated 5th
706 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
January, 2007 was passed on the ground
that the petitioner was involved in a
criminal
case
and
therefore
such
involvement does not entitle him for
employment in the police services.

5. After passing of the said order,
the petitioner was honorably acquitted by
the criminal court in Case Crime No. 616
of 2006 and the decision was rendered by
the Trial Court on 29th January, 2007. It
is, therefore, clear that the said judgment
was not before the Senior Superintendent
of Police when he passed the order dated
5th January, 2007.

6. The petitioner has approached this
Court questioning the correctness of the
impugned order and has brought on
record the order of acquittal through a
supplementary affidavit.

7. This Court after examining the
said acquittal order dated 29th January,
2007
passed
an
interim
order
on
28.2.2007 staying the operation of the
order dated 5th January, 2007 till the next
date of listing. The matter was contested
and after the State had filed appearance,
the writ petition was admitted on 25th
May, 2007 by the following order:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner's selection was
cancelled on the ground of registration of
Case Crime No. 616 of 2005. He submits
that petitioner has disclosed the said
criminal case in the affidavit filed in the
recruitment. Copy of the said affidavit has
been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ
petition. In paragraph 4 of the said
affidavit there is mention of criminal case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner filed an
application and affidavit bringing on
record
the
acquittal
order
dated
29.1.2007. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that other
constables have been sent for training but
by the impugned order petitioner's
selection has been cancelled.

The Senior Superintendent of Police
in the impugned order has taken a view
that since criminal case is pending, hence
petitioner is not fit to be appointed as
constable. The affidavit filed by the
petitioner in the recruitment discloses the
fact of registration of Case Crime No. 616
of 2005 against the petitioner. The Senior
Superintendent of Police has cancelled
the selection on the ground that criminal
case
against
the
petitioner
being
registered he is not a fit person to be
appointed. The copy of the acquittal order
in the above criminal case has been
brought on the record. In view of the facts
of the present case and submissions of the
petitioner, as noted above, the petitioner
has made out a case for permitting him to
be sent for training.

Admit.

In view of the above, the order dated
5th January, 2007 is stayed to the effect
that petitioner shall be sent for training,
which shall be subject to result of the final
order. No appointment letter shall be
issued to the petitioner after training
without leave of the Court."

8. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the State and the same
position has been taken namely that the
petitioner being involved in a criminal
case was not entitled for being selected
and appointed. It is to be noted that in
view of the interim orders passed by this
Court the petitioner was sent on training
which
fact
is
not
disputed.
2 All] Nanhey V State of U.P. and others
707

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the acquittal of the petitioner
entitles him for employment. It is submitted
that the impact of the acquittal order is that
the petitioner was never involved in any
criminal case and even otherwise the
petitioner had filed an affidavit before the
authorities disclosing his involvement. He
submits that this honest disclosure was in
accordance with rules and keeping in view
the subsequent acquittal the claim of the
petitioner deserves to be reconsidered in the
light of the same.

10. Learned Standing Counsel on the
other hand contends that the petitioner had
an antecedent of being involved in a
criminal case and therefore it cannot be said
that the impugned order is erroneous. He
further submits that the order was passed on
the basis of the material that was available
and in the absence of the order of acquittal it
cannot be said that the order suffers from
any infirmity.

11. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, the contention of the learned
Standing Counsel to the effect that the order
of acquittal was not in existence when the
impugned order was passed appears to be
correct.

12. However, in view of the
subsequent development which indicates an
advantage in favour of the petitioner, in my
opinion,
requires
the
matter
to
be
reconsidered in the light of the order of
acquittal. The petitioner after having been
acquitted will be presumed to have never
been involved in any criminal case. A
perusal of the judgment indicates that it was
a clean acquittal. The stain having been
erased on a judicial verdict by the
competent court washes out the effect of
involvement. This has to be viewed from
another angle. A person if falsely implicated
runs the risk of losing the opportunity to get
a job and it is here that injustice should not
be allowed to dislodge an otherwise valid
claim.

13.

Accordingly,
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police is required to
reconsider the candidature of the applicant
and as such for the said purpose the order
impugned dated 5th January, 2007 is
quashed. The Senior Superintendent of
Police will pass a fresh order keeping in
view the observations made hereinabove
within eight weeks from the date of
presentation of a certified copy of this order
before him.

14. The writ petition is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.07.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.K. SHUKLA, J

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2476 of 2009

Nanhey

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.A. Qadeer
Sri Iqbal Ahmad Siddiqui

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P.S. Baghel
Sri B.K. Pandey
S.C.

U.P. Panchayat Raj Act.,1947-Section95(i)(g)-Removal of Village Pradhanallegation of contesting the election by
changing his name and father's name to
suppress the pendency of criminal cases