Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Devender Kumar Yadav vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 31 May, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI OA NO.97/2010 NEW DELHI THIS THE 31st DAY OF MAY, 2011 HONBLE MR. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Devender Kumar Yadav Roll No.900503 S/o Shri Ram Kishan R/o Vill: Alimuddin Pur, Post: Faruk Nagar, Distt: Gurgaon, Haryana Applicant (By Advocate: Anil Singal) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police, Police Head Quarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Police Recruitment, New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi Respondents. (By Advocate: Sh. Chandramani Bhardwaj for Ms. Rashmi Chopra) : ORDER : Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A):
By the present OA, the Applicant herein, assails the letter dated 15.10.2009 (Annexure-A1) by which the Applicants case for appointment to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male has been rejected and prays for the following relief(s):
1. To call for the records of the case and quash/set aside the impugned Order dt. 15.10.2009 and direct the Respondents to issue letter of appointment to the Applicant for the post of Constable (Exe.) with all consequential benefits including Seniority/promotion and arrears of pay since the Applicant is still unemployed.
2. To award costs in favour of the Applicant and pass any order or orders which this Honble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case.
2. This is his 2nd round of litigation. Earlier the Applicant came to the Tribunal in OA No.483/2009 which was decided on 11.8.2009 with the direction to the Respondents to examine the Applicants case afresh. The Respondents did consider. The order passed has been impugned by the Applicant in the present OA.
3. We may briefly state the facts of the case. During the year 2007, an advertisement to fill up 2536 vacancies for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police was issued in leading News Papers dated 28.04.2007 and Employment News dated 12.05.2007. In response to the advertisement the Applicant applied for the said post. He was put through Physical Endurance and Measurement Test, Written Test, Interview and was declared provisionally selected subject to verification of character and antecedents and final checking of documents etc. The character and antecedents of Applicant were got verified from the authority concerned which revealed that he was involved in a criminal case FIR No.32, dated 07.03.2006 u/s 325/506 IPC, PS Farukh Nagar, Gurgaon (Haryana) which was pending trial in the Court. Later on, Applicant submitted an application to the Respondent No.2 stating therein that besides the said criminal case (FIR No.32, dated 07.03.2006) another criminal case in FIR No.149 dated 4.09.2007 u/s 325/506 IPC, PS Farukh Nagar, Gurgaon (Haryana) was also registered against him and the said case was also pending trial in the Court. On scrutiny of Application Form filled up by the Applicant, it revealed that he had disclosed the facts of his involvement in the said criminal case (FIR No.32, dated 07.03.2006). Further, in the relevant column of the Attestation Form filled up by him on 03.11.2007, he had given the details about both criminal cases viz. (i) FIR No.32, dated 07.03.2006 and (ii) FIR No.149, dated 04.09.2007. As both criminal cases were pending trial in the Court, his case for appointment to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police was kept in abeyance and he was directed to submit the copies of judgments in the both criminal cases. Later on, Applicant submitted an application on 18.9.2008 stating therein that he had been acquitted by the Trial Court in the both criminal cases and requested to allow him to join Delhi Police as Constable (Exe.). Hence, the Applicants case was examined first by the Screening Committee duly constituted by the Commissioner of Police, where the Committee took into account the nature of involvement of the Applicant in the criminal cases, gravity of the offences, the judgments of the Trial Court, and the grounds of acquittal in both cases. It is stated that the committee was guided by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India dated 04.10.1996 in Civil Appeal No.13231 of 1996 (arising out of SLP (C ) No.5340 of 1995) in the case of DAD versus Sushil Kumar. The Committee observed that the Applicant was involved in two criminal cases and had been acquitted by the Trial Court on the principal grounds that the main witnesses turned hostile. The committee also noted that he has the propensity to use force at the slightest provocation and considered him not suitable for appointment to the post of Const. (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police. The Applicant was issued a Show Cause Notice vide Office Memo dated 01.12.2008 proposing cancellation of his candidature for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police. On receipt of the same, Applicant submitted his reply on 18.12.2008 which was considered in detail alongwith relevant records. The competent authority took into view the observation made by the Screening Committee and found the Applicant not suitable for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police and his candidature for the said post was cancelled by the Memo dated 23.12.2008. Aggrieved by the said order of the Respondents, Applicant filed OA No.483/2009 before this Tribunal which was decided on 11.8.2009 with the following directions:-
A perusal of the above order would show that the Respondents have indeed not examined the various issues raised in the reply of the Applicant dated 15.12.2008 (Annexure A-2) to the Show Cause Notice. It can easily be concluded that the Respondents have not applied their mind to the issues raised by the Applicant in his reply dated 15.12.2008, before passing of the impugned order, and on this count the order is liable to be quashed. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Respondents to consider the reply of the Applicant to the Show Cause Notice and then pass such orders as are deemed appropriate. This may be done within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Pursuant to the above directions, the Applicants case was examined afresh in Delhi Police. The Respondents decided that the reply to Show Cause Notice submitted by Applicant should be considered as per the above directions and speaking/reasoned order should be issued. The case of the Applicant was considered and rejected by issuing a detailed speaking and reasoned order dated 15.10.2009. Being aggrieved by the said order the Applicant is before the Tribunal again.
4. The applicants case is that he has voluntarily revealed his involvement in the criminal cases when he filled up his application. The Respondents were aware of his criminal case and allowed him to appear in the test and interview which successfully qualified. If the applicants involvement in the criminal case per se debars or stands as an impediment, the Respondents should not have allowed him to appear in Physical, Written and Medical tests and Interview. It is contended that the fact that he was allowed in those tests and interview indicated that his involvement in the criminal case was not sufficient for cancelling his candidature.
5. Shri Anil Singal, the learned Counsel for the Applicant further submitted that the Applicant was acquitted in both criminal cases, as a result, the stigma attached to him for the criminal cases was obliterated. Thus, the Applicant cannot be denied appointment. He referred to the judgment of the Trial Court to say that the Applicant was acquitted not for hostile witnesses but the absence of any incriminating evidence brought on record against the Applicant. Therefore, the Applicant, being free from the stigma, is fit to be appointed.
6. Referring to the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Mohan Lal versus Union of India [1982 (1) SLR 573], he submits that acquittal of the Applicant is complete acquittal on merits and refers to the following observation:
Acquittal of a Government servant on benefit of doubt is complete acquittal on merits and consequentially the concerned Government Servant shall be entitled to full pay and allowances.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant referred to the following observations made by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana ( 1996 (4) SCC 17);
Before concluding this judgment we hereby draw attention of the Parliament to step in and perceive the large many cases which per law and public policy are tried summarily, involving thousands and thousands of people throughout the country appearing before summary Courts and paying small amounts of fine, more often than not, as a measure of plea-bargaining. Foremost among them being traffic, municipal and other petty offences under the Indian Penal Code, mostly committed by the young and/or the inexperienced. The cruel result of a conviction of that kind and a fine of payment of a paltry sum on plea-bargaining is the end of career, future or present, as the case may be, of that young and/or inexperienced person, putting a blast to his life and his dreams. Life is too precious to be staked over a petty incident like this. Immediate remedial measures are, therefore, necessary in raising the toleration limits with regard to petty offences especially when tried summarily.
8. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that many candidates, having been involved in Criminal Cases, have been appointed in Delhi Police. He referred to the case of Shri Braham Prakash, Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sh. Mintu Yadav, Sh. Anil Kumar, Sh. ARun Kumar, Sh. Sandeep Talyan, Sh. Pawan Kumar and Sh. Rajesh who were involved in the respective criminal cases but were appointed in their respective posts in Delhi Police. His contention is that the Applicant similarly circumstances should not be discriminated.
9. Shri Anil Singal made further reference to the case of Matadeen Garg versus State of Rajasthan [SLP No.15234/1988 decided on 12.07.1991] to state that it is only the conviction that would impede the appointment of a selected candidate. The applicant was not convicted but acquitted and hence his selection for appointment in Delhi Police should not have been cancelled. Further, he submits that the Respondents cannot sit on the judgment of the Trial Court which was not even challenged by the prosecution in the appellate Criminal Court. The Respondents are not free to conclude but to accept the verdict of the Court.
10. The learned counsel for the applicant strongly urged that the case of Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar (Civil Appeal No.13231/96 arising out of SLP(C) No.5340/1996, decided on 04.10.1996 by the Honble Supreme Court on which reliance has been placed by the respondents, is not applicable to the Applicants case as that was a case of concealment whereas it is not so in the present case since the Applicant has voluntarily revealed his involvement in the criminal case at the time of his making applications and also subsequently. The respondents have not given due consideration to the Applicants submissions and passed the order which are bad in law.
11. The learned Counsel made further references to the case of Samraj Singh versus Government of NCT of Delhi and Another [OA No.153/2009 decided on 8.12.2009] this Tribunal remanded the case of Samraj Singh to the Respondent to re-examine.
12. In support of his contentions, the judgment of Honble Delhi High Court in 5 cases viz. Delhi Police and Another versus Omveer Yadav [WP (C) No.12899/2009 decided on 19.04.2010], Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Another versus Jai Prakash [WP (C) No.3566/2010 decided on 24.05.2010]; Govt. of NCT of Delhi versus Sunil Kumar [WP (C) No.5768 decided on 27.08.2010]; a batch of two Writ Petitions [WP(C) No.5510/2010 and 5527/2010] decided together on 11.11.2010. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Another versus Dinesh Kumar was the lead case; and Ram Het Meena versus Union of India and Others [WP(C) No.9314/2009 decided on 15.03.2011] wherein the law laid in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi and Another versus Robin Singh [171 (2010) DLT 705 DB] was relied on to direct the Respondents to reconsider the candidature of the Petitioners.
13. A reference was made to the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the matters of Commissioner of Police and Others versus Sandeep Kumar [Civil Appeal No(s) 1430 of 2007 decided on 17.03.2011] wherein the Respondent concealed his involvement in a criminal case and after his selection to the post of Head Constable, the Appellants cancelled his candidature and the Respondents application before this Tribunal was dismissed and Honble High Court of Delhi allowed the Writ Petition in favour of the Respondent. While upholding the Honble High Courts order, it was observed that It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/35 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter. For the reasons above given, this appeal has no force and it is dismissed. Shri Singal would, therefore, contend that the Applicant stood in a better footing as not only the charges were not serious but he was acquitted in both cases.
14. The Respondents, on receipt of the notice from the Tribunal, have filed their reply affidavit on 12.04.2010 opposing the grounds taken by the Applicant. Shri Chandramani Bhardwaj appearing on behalf of Mrs. Rashmi Chopra, learned Counsel controverted the contentions advanced by Shri Anil Singal. Respondents also produced two files viz. the file relating to the Applicants application and the file relating to the meeting of the Committee held on 6.11.2008 which considered the Applicants suitability for the said post.
15. Shri Bhardwaj contends that the Tribunal in its earlier order dated 11.08.2009 passed in OA No. 483/2009 directed the Respondents to consider the Applicants reply to the Show Cause Notice and pass speaking and reasoned order. In the said order dated 11.08.2009, the Tribunal has already considered most of the grounds raised by the Applicant. In compliance of the said direction, he submits, the Respondents have passed a speaking and reasoned order covering all the points raised by the Applicant.
16. Shri Bhardwaj further mentions that the Honble Supreme Court of India in Sushil Kumars case (supra) laid the law which guides the Respondents. He drew our attention to the following part of the judgment:-
Verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though, he was physically found fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedents record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint of such record as a Constable to the disciplined 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 directions 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 in the conduct or character of a candidate to be appointed to a service and not actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focused his aspect and found him not desirable to appoint to the service.
17. It is contended that Respondents examined the Applicants case through a Screening Committee only after receipt of the Trial Court judgments wherein the Applicant was acquitted. The Committee has taken into consideration the nature of Applicants involvement in both criminal cases, gravity of offence, grounds of acquittal and keeping in mind the law set by Honble Supreme Court in Sushil Kumars case (supra) found the Applicant not suitable for the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police. He further submits that all candidates are put to tests and interview and successful candidates are selected provisionally and only after their medical test, character and antecedents verification, the candidates found fit are issued offer of appointment. But, as the Applicant was found not suitable by the Committee, the competent authority after consideration of the Applicants representation on the Show Cause Notice passed the candidature cancellation order.
18. Referring to the discrimination ground raised by the Applicant, Shri Bhardwaj would contend that each and every case was decided on the basis of respective judgment of Court/Tribunal and the Applicants case is dissimilar to those cases. He also referred to the Paragraph in the impugned order to state that discrimination ground has not been accepted by the competent authority. He, therefore, pleads that the OA is a fit case to be dismissed.
19. We have given our careful consideration to the respective submissions made by both the parties. We have also carefully perused the records of the case including the files of Recruitment Cell in respect of the Applicant.
20. Before we dwell on these contentions, we would like to indicate that some of the grounds have been analysed and findings rendered by the Tribunal in the Applicants first OA (OA No.483/2009) which hold good in the present OA as well. We, therefore, reproduce below the relevant paragraphs:-
8. The issue in the present case is in a very narrow campus. It is an admitted position that the present case is not a case of concealment of fact of involvement of the applicant in the criminal cases. The applicant had indeed disclosed his involvement in the Application Form as well as in the Attestation Form at the appropriate time. It is also accepted that mere involvement of the applicant in the criminal case(s) in which he was subsequently acquitted by itself should not disqualify him for appointment to the post. However, what is material in such cases, is to see the nature of the offence in which he was involved and the manner of the acquittal.
9. The following observations of the Apex Court in Sushil Kumars case (supra) are relevant in this connection:
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 or character of a candidate to be appointed to a service and not actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore has rightly focused this aspect and found him not desirable to appoint to the service. (Emphasis supplied)
10. In this background, the Screening Committee constituted by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to look into the case of the applicant came to the conclusion that the applicant was not suitable for the post of Constable in Delhi Police as the applicant had been acquitted in both the criminal cases merely on the ground that the main witnesses had turned hostile and we are of the view that it is not possible or even desirable to even attempt to substitute our judgement over that of the Screening Committee. This view of ours, is further reinforced, when we consider that already being involved in the first criminal case when the applicant applied on 29.05.2007 for a post in the Delhi Police, he got involved in another criminal case on 04.09.2007, although at that time he was fully aware that he had applied and was about to enter a disciplined police force where exemplary behaviour is expected of its members. Evidently, the applicant had not taken care to ensure the conduct expected of a good citizen.
11. While we have taken note of the various cases cited in para 5 of the OA, we also conscious that each and every case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances and has to be decided in the context of those facts and circumstances. Having taken note of the fact that the applicant came to be involved in two criminal cases in both of which he was acquitted because witnesses turned hostile and that the involvement in the second criminal case took place well after he had applied for admission into the Delhi Police Force, we do not feel that any judicial interference in this case is warranted.
In this connection, it would be pertinent to observe that there are massive numbers of hardworking young persons of impeccable conduct and behaviour who would be looking for jobs in the Delhi Police and it may not be fair, therefore, to overlook the facts of the present case.
21. We have narrated within that the Respondents have been directed in the above order of the Tribunal to pass a reasoned and speaking order and the cancellation of candidature was cancelled with direction to reconsider the Applicants plea taken in response to the Show Cause Notice issued to him. In compliance, the impugned order has been passed. After making a detailed analysis of the facts and the seven main reasons given by the Applicant, the competent authority has passed the following orders:-
Besides, you had also mentioned the cases of many candidates like Braham Prakash, Rajesh Kumar, Mintu Yadav, Anil Kumar, Sandeep Talyan, Pawan Kumar etc., who were given appointment to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police on the directions of the Honble Courts.
Now, your case has again been examined and plea(s)/facts/reasons put forth by you in the reply to show cause notice have been considered in detail. It is added that each and every case is decided on merit considering all aspect of the case. The cases of candidates Braham Prakash, Rajesh Kumar, Mintu Yadav, Anil Kumar, Sandeep Talyan, Pawan Kumar etc. cited by you in the reply to show cause notice were examined in detail in Police Hdqrs. In view of the directions of the Honble Court as well as manner of commission of offence, gravity of the offence, role of individual, criminal propensity and judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India dated 04.10.1996 in Civil Appeal NO.13231 of 1996 (arising out of SLP(C) No.5340 of 1996-DAD Vs. Sushil Kumar) and they were allowed to join the department as Constable (Exe.) after observing usual formalities. As regards the verdicts/judgments delivered by the Honble Court in various cases cited by you in the reply to show cause notice cannot be compared with your cases because of the reasons that all the matter decided by the Honble Court considering all the facts/circumstance of the case.
Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances as stated above your case for appointment to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi is considered and rejected.
22. Above order was passed mainly on the basis of the recommendation of the Screening Committee which met on 6.11.2008. The Minutes of the Committee meeting read as follows:-
The Committee under the chairmanship of Shri Qamar Ahmed, Joint CP/Hqrs. including Shri L. C. Jain, LA to CP/Delhi as members met on 06.11.2008 to examine the suitability of candidate Devender Singh Yadav (Roll No.900503) in detail keeing the nature of his incolvement, gravity of offence, judgment of the Court and also the grounds of acquittal.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India dated 04.10.1996 in Civil Appeal No.13231 of 1996 (arising out of SLP (C) No.5340 of 1996 DAD vs. Sushil Kumar)), the Committee recommended as follows:-
FIR No.32/2006, u/s 325/506 IPC, P.S. Farrukh Nagar, Curgaon, Haryana.
FIR No.149/2007, u/s 323/325/34 IPC, P.S. Farrukh Nagar, Gurgaon, Haryana.
(In both the cases, Shri Davender Singh yadav Has been acquitted by the Court).
In FIR No.32/2006, u/s 325/506 IPC, the accused has been acquitted because the main witness has not supported the prosecution case qua the fact that the injuries on his person were caused by the accused. The main witness turned hostile & was declared so..
In FIR No.149/2007, u/s 323/325/34 also the main witness did not support the prosecution story. He was declared hostile by the prosecutor. The Honble Court recorded that benefit of doubt would go in favour of the accused and the accused were acquitted accordingly.
The candidate Shri Davender Singh Yadav had two criminal cases to his discredit. In both the cases there were allegations of use of violence and force. It shows that he has the propensity to use force at slightest provocation. Accordingly, he is not considered suitable for employment in Delhi Police and hence the Committee is of the opinion that he is not fit for police service.
23. It is well established proposition of law that the appointing authority or the employer has the right to consider the desirability and suitability of the candidature of an applicant in public service/ employment. Verification of the character and antecedents of the applicant is one of the important criteria in the selection process to test whether they are suitable for employment. This is in addition to the consideration of an applicants qualifications and experience. Even if the Applicant is found to be physically fit, passed the written test, in possession of the requisite qualification and experience and has been successful, yet he may be denied appointment if verification of his character and antecedents warrants cancellation of his candidature.
24. On the other hand, the involvement in a criminal case, per se, is not a disqualification for appointment/public employment. Had it been so, it would have been sufficient to state that the person involved in any criminal case is not eligible for appointment and the person so involved would not be allowed to compete in the recruitment process. What is required to be seen in such cases is not the mere involvement in the criminal case but actually the conduct, character and antecedents as exhibited by ones conduct based on which an objective view has been taken as to desirability and suitability for inducting him into service. For this purpose, the candidates are required to disclose on their own their involvement in any criminal case in the past so as to facilitate the verification of their character and antecedents by the prospective employer. The act of concealing the requisite information in this regard adversely reflects upon the character and antecedents of the person concerned and this by itself is taken as a ground sufficient to cancel the candidature of delinquent candidate even if he is otherwise qualified for appointment to the post in question. The present case is not a case of concealment of criminal case in the Application and Attestation Forms but the case of involvement in 2 criminal cases.
25. Between these two extremes, there lie a large number of cases of different dimensions and complexions. On the one hand, verification of the character and antecedents of the candidate for appointment is not an empty formality for he cannot claim that he be appointed to the post on the basis of his qualification and performance in the selection process notwithstanding the outcome of the verification process of his character and antecedents. On the other hand, a persons candidature need not be thrown out solely on account of his involvement in a criminal case if he is otherwise found fit for such appointment as he is further required to pass the suitability test with reference to his character and antecedents in the past the outcome of which should be such as not to render him undesirable for induction in public employment. The appointing authority is required to examine this aspect in a pragmatic and objective manner so as to take a decision in the matter based on the relevant facts and circumstances of a given case. A candidate needs to be given a fair consideration. The decision of the appointing authority in such a case should not be arbitrary.
26. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any force in the Applicants contention that having been provisionally selected on the basis of his qualification and performance in the selection process, he is entitled for appointment notwithstanding his involvement in the criminal cases which he has voluntarily disclosed in the application at the time of submitting his application forms or otherwise the Respondents could not have allowed the Applicant to compete in the recruitment process.
27. The Applicants ground of his discrimination has been examined by the competent authority. We find logic and rationality in the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order. It is noted that facts and circumstances of each case is different from the other. There is no wholesale and comprehensive similarity between those cases and the Applicants case. Just because the Sections of IPC under which some of those cases were registered are same/similar to those of the Applicant and just because some of them were acquitted as the Applicant was acquitted, similarity would be illogical and on this plea, discrimination claim, in our considered view, would be irrational. Hence, this ground of discrimination is rejected.
28. In Sandeep Kumars case (supra), the Honble Supreme Court considered the case of Respondents concealment of his criminal case which was compromised resulting in his acquittal much before the Respondents application for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) on the basis of which his candidature was cancelled after service of Show Cause Notice. He filed an OA before this Tribunal which was dismissed and on appeal Honble High Court of Delhi held the cancellation of candidature as illegal. The appellant moved the Honble Supreme Court in the said Civil Appeal which was decided on 17.03.2011 by dismissing the same. We distinguish this judgment as it was qua the Respondent and cannot be taken for application in the present OA. Our close and careful study of the judgments of Honble High Court of Delhi in Omveer Yadavs case (supra), Ram Het Meenas case (supra), Jai Prakashs case (supra), Sunil Kumars case (supra) and Dinesh Kumars case (supra) and that of this Tribunal in Samraj Singhs case (supra) are dissimilar in the facts and circumstances of the present OA. In the present case, the Tribunal has earlier quashed and set aside the candidature cancellation order for consideration of the Respondents. The Respondents having considered all the ground of the Applicant including the plea of discrimination and have come to the conclusion that the Applicant was not suitable for the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police and passed a detailed order.
29. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order cannot be viewed as arbitrary and discriminatory in nature, nor the same can be viewed as non-application of mind. We are of considered opinion that the present OA is not a fit case calling for our interference.
30. Resultantly, the OA being devoid of merits is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) /pj/