Telangana High Court
B. Srinivas vs The State Of Telangana on 22 November, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.26947 of 2023
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus duly setting aside the impugned Memo. Rc. No. No. 249/Rectt/Genl.1/2017 dated 03-10- 2017 cancelling the appointment of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub Inspector (Civil) in Zone VI in SC mechanically without applying mind and without examined the Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment in proper prospective though the Petitioner is not involved in any case of moral turpitude or heinous/ serious nature of offence hence the action of the 2nd Respondent is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice, liable to be set aside and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled to be selected and appointed as Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub Inspector (Civil) in Zone VI in SC with benefits incidental thereto on the analogy of orders issued in respect of similarly situated persons from time to time and to pass..."
2. Heard Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services (Home), on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3, and Sri M.V. Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of notification Rc.No.671/R&T/Rect.1/2008 dated 30.12.2008 the petitioner had participated in the selection process with registration No.175522 and was provisionally selected for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub Inspector (Civil) in Zone-VI under SC category. 2
PK, J W.P.No.26947 of 2023 However, his provisional selection was cancelled vide memo dated 18.02.2012 on the ground of his involvement in a criminal case vide Crime No.162 of 2010 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 493 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforementioned criminal case subsequently ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 31.10.2014 in C.C.No.294 of 2012 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar and the appeal filed by the de- facto complaint was also dismissed vide judgment dated 23.01.2017 in Crl.A.No.35 of 2015 on the file of the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar, confirming the judgment of the Court below. Thereafter, on his acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner submitted his representation before respondent No.2 on 22.06.2017 requesting to review the order of cancellation of his provisional selection vide Memo dated 08.02.2012, but the same was rejected vide proceedings Rc.No.249/Rectt/Genl.1/2017 dated 03.10.2017 on the ground that an attempt was made to suppress the factual information in the attestation form. However, according to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avatar Singh v. Union of India 1, the petitioner is entitled for selection and appointment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub Inspector 1 (2016) 8 SCC 471 3 PK, J W.P.No.26947 of 2023 (Civil), in view of the fact that he was acquitted in the aforementioned criminal case.
4. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 rejected the claim of the petitioner without any basis on the ground of suppression of material facts either in the application form or in the attestation form. However, the alleged suppression is only a lack of knowledge of fact and law, but not a deliberate one. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar 2, dealt with the case of the candidate, wherein, his appointment for the post of Constable was cancelled on the ground that he has concealed his involvement in a criminal case under Section 325 r/w. 34 IPC when he was aged about 20 years only; and the Hon'ble Apex Court took note of the same and held the cancellation of his candidature as illegal. Further, it was held that the people at a young age often commit indiscretion and such indiscretions can often be condoned. They are not expected to behave in a manner as mature a manner as older people. Likewise, the petitioner herein was also aged about 24 years at the time of his involvement in the said criminal case. As such, the approach of the petitioner should be condoned as a minor indiscretion.
2 (2011) 4 SCC 644 4 PK, J W.P.No.26947 of 2023
5. It is further contended that the impugned rejection order dated 03.10.2017 is bereft of any reasons. As such, the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner is vitiated. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 re-examined the cases of similarly situated persons, and it was decided to provide special relaxation for consideration of their cases for appointment. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Rt.No.232 dated 10.02.2016 stating that the likes shall be treated alike, and there cannot be any discrimination among similarly situated individuals. Therefore, the same benefit may be extended to the petitioner herein also on the basis of the parity principle and it would not be open to the respondents to adopt different yardsticks in respect of similarly situated individuals. Hence, the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner while considering the cases of the similarly placed persons and selectively favouring those candidates who are identically placed, is per-se illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and in gross violation of provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is prayed to set aside the impugned rejection order dated 03.10.2017 with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner on the analogy of the orders in the case of similarly situated persons. Learned counsel relies 5 PK, J W.P.No.26947 of 2023 on the order and judgment of this Court in W.P.No.965 of 2021 and W.A.No.257 of 2023 dated 27.04.2022 and 01.03.2023 respectively.
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, while admitting the fact that the petitioner was provisionally selected for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub Inspector (Civil) (Men) with registration No.175522 subject to verification of his antecedents/certificates and medical examination, submits that the petitioner was found involved in a criminal case vide Crime No.162 of 2010 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 493 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code of Narisingi Police Station of Cyberabad, and that the petitioner did not specify the details of the criminal case in his attestation form he submitted during the process of recruitment. Further, according to Rule 3 G(i) of the Telangana Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999, issued in G.O.Ms.No.97, Home (Legal-II) Department, dated 01.05.2006, suppression of the material facts either in the application or attestation forms, disqualifies a candidate for selection or appointment. As such, the petitioner's provisional selection was cancelled vide memo dated 18.02.2012.
7. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted his representation in 2017 after a period of five years from the date of cancellation of his provisional selection, requesting to consider his 6 PK, J W.P.No.26947 of 2023 candidature for appointment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub Inspector (Civil) (Men), duly enclosing a copy of the judgment dated 31.10.2014 in C.C.No.294 of 2013 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate stating that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case and that he was acquitted by the Trial Court that dealt the case on its merits. Since the petitioner's provisional selection was already cancelled in the year 2012 itself on the ground of suppression of the details of his involvement in a criminal case, the representation of the petitioner was rejected vide impugned rejection order dated 03.10.2017. Further, without challenging the earlier order of cancelation of his provisional selection vide Memo dated 08.02.2012, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned memo dated 03.10.2017, that too, after a period of six years of acknowledging the same. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches also.
8. It is further submitted that the notification in which the petitioner had participated was issued in the composite state of Andhra Pradesh in 2008, and after bifurcation of the State, three notifications were issued and the recruitment process of the latest notification dated 25.04.2022 was also completed, and the candidates selected to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub Inspector (Civil) are currently undergoing 7 PK, J W.P.No.26947 of 2023 Induction Training which started on 11.09.2023. As such, on the ground of delay, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Further, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avatar Singh case (supra) has no applicability to the present case for the reason that the petitioner has suppressed the details of his involvement in the criminal case. According to the aforesaid decision, the employer shall take into account any government orders/instructions/rules applicable to the employee at the time of taking the decision. Moreover, the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 14.06.2022 in W.P.No.20348 of 2023, held that the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avatar Singh case (supra) have to be read in consonance with the rules governing the recruitment and the recruitment notification. According to the SCT Rules, suppression of material facts either in the application or attestation forms disqualifies a candidate from being selected/appointed.
10. It is further submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 22.07.2010 for his involvement in the aforementioned criminal case and that he applied for the post of SCT SI (Civil) and submitted his application and attestation forms while working as Police Constable. However, he submitted his attestation form suppressing the details of the said criminal case. As such, since the petitioner was 8 PK, J W.P.No.26947 of 2023 involved in a serious case of moral turpitude registered for the offences punishable under Sections 493 and 420 of the IPC, he is not eligible for appointment in accordance with Rule 3(G)(vi) of the SCT Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.97 dated 01.05.2006. Further, the Government after conducting a meeting with the DGP, Telangana state, and the Chairman of respondent No.2 Board on 08.08.2015, examined the cases of 197 candidates whose provisional selections were cancelled, and decided to issued special relaxation for considering the cases of three individuals, who were involved in Telangana Agitation cases, for their appointment as SCT PCs, and issued orders vide G.O.Rt.No.232 dated 10.02.2016. It was categorically mentioned in the said G.O. that the said orders shall not be quoted as a precedent case in any future correspondence. As such, the case of the petitioner herein cannot be equated with that of the candidates who were involved in Telangana Agitation.
11. It is further submitted that the individual in W.P.No.965 of 2021 and W.A.No.257 of 2023 was involved in a Traffic Accident case and had disclosed the details of the criminal case in his attestation form, and later, the said criminal case was quashed by this Court. Therefore, his case was recommended by the screening committee. However, in the present case, the petitioner was involved in a serious case of moral turpitude and suppressed the details of the criminal case in his 9 PK, J W.P.No.26947 of 2023 attestation form. Therefore, the case of the petitioner herein is not similar to that of the individual in W.P.No.965 of 2021 and W.A.No.257 of 2023. Hence, there are no merits in the present writ petition, and it is therefore, prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and others v. Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal 3.
12. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
13. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner had applied for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub Inspector (Civil) (Men) in Zone-VI in response to the notification Rc.No.671/R&T/Rect.1/2008 dated 30.12.2008, and he was provisionally selected for the said post with Registration No.175522. Thereafter, on verification of his antecedents, it has come to limelight that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case vide Crime No.162 of 2010 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 493 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the file of the Narisingi Police Station of Cyberabad, which was numbered as C.C.No.294 of 2012 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. As can be seen from the record, the said criminal case was pending as on the day of both his 3 2024 INSC 550 10 PK, J W.P.No.26947 of 2023 provisional selection, and his submission of the attestation form. According to the respondents, despite being aware of the fact of his involvement in the criminal case, the petitioner failed to disclose the same in his attestation form. Therefore, respondent No.2 had cancelled the petitioner's provisional selection to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub Inspector (Civil) (Men) vide Memo No.878/RNT/Genl/2011 dated 18.02.2012 in accordance with Rule 3(G)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999, according to which, 'suppression of material facts (either in the application form or in the attestation form) is disqualification for selection/appointment'.
14. The record further reveals that the petitioner was acquitted in the aforementioned criminal case vide judgment dated 31.10.2014 in C.C.No.294 of 2012 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. The same was, thereafter, confirmed in the appeal preferred by the de-facto complainant vide judgment dated 18.02.2017 in Crl.A.No.35 of 2015 on the file of the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities in the year 2017 and made a representation requesting to consider his case for appointment to the post of SCT SI (Civil) (Men). The said request was rejected by the respondents vide impugned memo dated 03.10.2017 on the grounds that 11 PK, J W.P.No.26947 of 2023 his provisional selection to the post of SCT SI (Civil) (Men) was already cancelled in the year 2012 vide memo dated 18.02.2012 and that the leftover vacancies of the year 2008 have been included in the subsequent recruitment notifications.
15. Here, it is to be noted that the petitioner failed to challenge the order of the cancellation of his provisional selection vide Rc.No.878/R&T/Genl.1/ 2011 dated 18.02.2012. Hence, in the absence of a challenge to that order, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the impugned rejection order vide Rc.No.249/Rectt/ Genl.1/2017 dated 03.10.2017, after a lapse of about six years, for which, no reasons are assigned. Thus, it clearly shows that the petitioner was reluctant to challenge the rejection order in a timely manner.
16. As regards delay in approaching this Court, a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 13.12.2021 in Writ Appeal Nos.1660 of 2018 and 593 of 2016, has categorically held the delay of 5 to 18 years in preferring a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as inordinate delay. In the present case, since there is an inordinate delay of about six years on the part of the petitioner, for which, no reasons are assigned, this Court is not inclined to entertain 12 PK, J W.P.No.26947 of 2023 the present writ petition. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.
___________________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date: 22.11.2024.
GSP