Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: character and antecedent verification in Akashdeep Morya vs State & Ors on 25 May, 2018Matching Fragments
(6 of 22) [CW-15063/2016] In the reply, facts stated in paras nos.1 to 14 were not refuted to the extent in consonance with the record, but it is specifically stated that the name of the petitioner was included in the select list at S.No.150 and names of all the selected candidates were sent to the State Government with the request that verification of the antecedents, character and medical fitness of the selected candidates be made at the earliest and after completing process, the same may be sent back to the High Court for further action. The State Government informed through its communications that out of 187 selected candidates, the criminal proceedings are either pending or disposed of qua 12 selected candidates. It is further stated that out of 12 candidates, the petitioner Akashdeep Morya is one of them against whom four FIRs were registered in between the period from 1999 to 2012, (6 of 25) [CW- 12290/2017] the following details of those FIRs and out come of those FIRs wer given in the reply, which is as follows:
FIR no./Police Under Sections Police Decision of court Station investigation 81/25.6.99 341, 323, 147, Charge sheet Acquitted on 148, 149, 504, dated 5.2.2001 324 IPC 26.7.1999 75/3.5.11 420, 406, FR FR accepted on 120B IPC No.78/29.5.11 1.10.2011 106/6.6.11 452, 323, 34 FR FR accepted on IPC No.120/30.6.11 18.10.11 98/30.5.12 341, 323, 324, Charge sheet Acquitted on 34 IPC dated 27.6.12 16.7.12 Upon receiving the verification reports of character, antecedents, conduct and medical reports of aforesaid 12 candidates was placed before the committee for consideration. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Committee in its meeting held on 6.7.2015 requested not to (7 of 22) [CW-15063/2016] recommend the name of the petitioner on the ground that although there is acquittal in all the four cases but looking to the nature of the criminal cases reported against him, he does not deserve indulgence to be considered for appointment on the post of Civil Judge Cadre and accordingly does not recommend for appointment. The recommendation of the Hon'ble Committee was placed before the Full Court in its meeting held on 8.8.2015 and Hon'ble Full Court resolved to request the Hon'ble Committee to re-
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have minutely examined the facts of the case and legal proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is no dispute with regard to the selection of the petitioner on the post of Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) and Judicial Magistrate as per his performance. Admittedly, the petitioner was declared successful in written examination as well as in the interview and after selection, his name was sent alongwith all selected candidates to the State Government with the request for verification of antecedents, character and medical fitness and in so far as the petitioner is (17 of 25) [CW-12290/2017] concerned, the State Government sent information that four cases were registered against him.
Upon appreciation of entire facts and documentary evidence on record, there is no doubt that out of four cases, in two cases compromise was arrived at between the parties because offences were for simple nature, for the dispute of water supply upon agricultural land, in which ultimately compromise arrived between the parties and the petitioner alongwith his brother was acquitted and complainant was also acquitted in one of the case in the cross FIR registered upon complaint of accused party. Admittedly, no criminal case pending against the petitioner when online application form was submitted by him for recruitment upon the post in question. In case of Avtar Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that whole idea of verification of character and antecedents is that the person suitable for the post should be appointed and candidate should not have antecedents of such a serious nature which may adjudge him unsuitable for the post. The verification of antecedents is necessary to find out fitness of the candidates. The case in hand there is no allegation of suppression of information. More so, it is a case in which (20 of 25) [CW-12290/2017] petitioner has categorically explain that out of four cases, two cases were found to be false after investigation, therefore, FR was submitted and accepted by the court. In two other cases offences were of simple injuries in which compromise arrived between the parties because those offences were compoundable as per Cr.P.C., therefore, petitioner and other persons were acquitted by the Court.