Allahabad High Court
Sahvir Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 4 April, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20537 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sahvir Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was selected on the post of Constable in civil police and after selection had submitted his Character Verification Affidavit where he had disclosed pendency of a criminal case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 342, 332, 252 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The respondent-authorities called for verification report from the District Magistrate concerned, who has verified the fact that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner was not permitted to join his duties on account of pendency of criminal case.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, 2016 (8) SCC 471 once the criminal antecedents are truthfully disclosed in the Character Verification Form/Affidavit, then it is for the employer to consider the facts and circumstances and the criminal antecedents and appoint the candidate subject to the decision of the criminal case.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have not completed the exercise as directed in paragraph 30(6) of the Avtar Singh (supra) case and as such not permitting the petitioner to join the duties without due consideration in accordance with the aforesaid judgment, is arbitrary.
He submits that the respondent-authorities may be directed to consider case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable in accordance with paragraph 30(6) of the Avtar Singh (supra) case.
It is further submitted that subsequently vide opinion dated 21.6.2021 the Joint Director (Prosecution), Etah has also forwarded his opinion for appointment of the petitioner on the post in question.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner as such the petitioner was not permitted to join on the post of Constable, although the petitioner was duly selected. He submits that the Character Verification Report/Affidavit received from the District Magistrate concerned also confirmed that the petitioner was having criminal antecedents.
Learned Standing Counsel however, fairly submitted that the petitioner had disclosed in the affidavit before the recruitment agency with regard to the fact that the petitioner was having criminal antecedents. He further does not dispute that till date no consideration in accordance with paragraph 30(6) of the Avtar Singh (supra) case has been made by the authorities concerned.
It is to be seen that in the case of employment the criminal antecedent of a candidate may have important bearing on the appointment of the candidate on the post in question. The petitioner in the present case has fairly disclosed in the affidavit before the recruitment agency with regard to his criminal antecedents and the criminal case pending against the petitioner. In paragraph 30(6) of Avtar Singh (supra) case the Apex Court has issued directions for consideration of candidature of a candidate who is having criminal antecedents. For reference paragraph 30.6 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:-
"30(6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case."
It is further to be noted that as per paragraph 30.6 of the Avtar Singh (supra) case once criminal antecedents have been declared by a candidate truthfully in the Character Verification Form/Affidavit, it is for the employer to take into account the facts and circumstances of the criminal case to come to a conclusion whether the appointment to a candidate can be granted subject to decision of the aforesaid case. In the present case, no such exercise has been conducted by the respondents.
The respondents are required to consider the candidature of the petitioner by dwelling upon an inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case to come to a conclusion whether the appointment of the petitioner on the post in question subject to decision of the criminal case would be in the interest of the State. Such an exercise is required to be completed at the earliest so that the candidate may not suffer because of any delay on the part of the respondent-authorities.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is hereby provided that the respondent no.5 shall enter into an inquiry regarding the criminal antecedents by inquiring into the facts of the criminal case and to come to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 30.6 of the Avtar Singh (supra) case. In case, the respondent no.5 comes to the conclusion that the petitioner can be appointed on the post in question subject to the decision of the case, the appointment shall be given expeditiously. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by respondent no.5 within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Subject to the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 4.4.2023 Bhaskar