Rajbeer Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

IN T

Rajbeer Singh State of Punjab

CORAM : HO HO

Present: Mr

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

The passed by the l Vs. State of Pu seeking directio Cadre, Ferozepu list were appoin BRIEF FACTS

2.

The

(i) con Pol

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

LP Re Da

VERSUS and Others

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURE ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUD r. Angel Walia, Advocate for the r. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Pun -.-

HARMA, J. e present appeal is preferred aga earned Single Judge in CWP-2 unjab & Others', whereby the w ns to the respondents to appoint ur with effect from the date, per nted, was dismissed. S OF THE CASE e brief facts of the case are as un In June 2016, the responde nstable out of which certain pos lice of District Ferozepur. The

JAB AND HARYANA ARH PA-1706-2019 (O&M) served on :-24.09.2024 ate of Decision : 03.10.2024

....Appellant

....Respondents ESHWAR THAKUR EEPTI SHARMA appellants. njab. ainst the judgment dated 25.04.20 136-2017 titled as 'Rajbeer Sin writ petition filed by the appell him as Constable in District Pol rsons lower to him in the select nder:- ents had advertised 7400 posts sts were kept for District Cadre e applications were to be submit

ngh lant lice s of e of

onl wa for pos he w

ii) wa hav

iii) wa

iv) 'Ra vid SUBMISSIONS

3.

Lea registered again compromise wa criminal prosecu form was to be who did not ask all information

line. The educational qualificat s found eligible, he was allotted physical test which he qualifi sition in merit, the appellant was was selected and allocated Distr After the appellant was selec s entitled to appoint as constable appellant was not offered the a persons lower in merits were ve duly joined on the post. On inquiry from the office of appellant has not been offered s found mentioned in some crim Thereafter, the appellant ajbeer Singh Vs. State of Punja de impugned judgment dated 25.0 S OF LEARNED COUNSEL F arned counsel for the appellant c nst the appellant, but he was acq as effected between the parties a ution, in any court of law. He fu submitted online and it was fill k for any details in this regard an regarding, Whether any FIR or

ion was 10+2. Since the appell d Roll No.9110096 and was cal fied. As per his performance s found to be suitable and therefo rict Firozepur. cted and was found medically fit e according to his merits. Howev appointment despite the fact that given appointments and that th f respondent No.3, it transpired t the appointment because his na minal case. filed CWP-2136-2017 titled ab & Others' which was dismis

04.2019. Hence the present appe FOR THE PARTIES contends that though two FIRs w quitted in one and in the other c and therefore, he is not facing urther contends that the applicat led by the owner of the cyber ca nd that is why against the colum r criminal case has been register

lant lled ore, , he ver, t all hey ame as ssed eal. were case any afe, mns, red;

have you ever b "NO" was filled the part of appel support of his co No.1430 of 200 Kumar" and LP through its Sec appeal be allow Judge be set asid

4.

Per application form candidate as w provided incorre made for the pu against you (ca answer as "No" proceedings in "No". He furth but before issu incumbent upon of the candidat qualification cer involved in two the recruitment

been arrested; have you ever bee d by the owner of the cyber cafe llant and there was no concealm ontentions, he has relied upon th 07 titled as "Commissioner of PA No.320 of 2019 titled as "Ha cretary Vs. Sarla and others". T wed and judgment dated 25.04.2 de. r contra, learned counsel for r m contains terms and conditio well as personal information an ect and wrong particulars. He f urpose whether any FIR or crim andidate who applied for the p ". Further the column meant any Court of law in India?", t her contends that though the nam uance of appointment letter fo n the Department/employer to v te, his medical check-up repor rtificates and after verification i FIRs. He further contends that for the said post, it was duly re

en tried and convicted or acquitt e. Therefore, there was no fault ment of the facts by the appellant. he judgments passed in Civil App f Police and others Vs. Sand aryana Staff Selection Commiss Therefore, he prays that the pres 2019 passed by the learned Sin respondent-State contends that ons regarding the character of nd the appellant in his applicat further contends that in the colu minal case has ever been registe post), the appellant has given for "Are you facing any crimi the appellant had given answer me of the appellant was in merit for the post of constable, it w verify the character and antecede rt and verification of educatio it was found that the appellant w t as per the terms and conditions ecorded in the application form t

ted, t on In peal deep sion sent ngle umn ered inal r as list was ents onal was

the candidate sh candidate that in or any material be cancelled an this regard afte him. Therefore writ petition file

5.

We record of this ca

6.

Rel is reproduced as whe whe ans Wh bee Ha crim

tha Com SC

hall fill the correct information n case any information furnished information is found to be conc nd he understands that no claim rwards. The appellant conceale e, he contends that learned Sing ed by the appellant and the prese e have heard learned counsel for ase. levant portion of the judgment p s under:- "........................ I find subst ere were two columns in the app ether the candidate was involve ether he had ever been arreste swer to both the questions, petit e application as reproduced in th hether any FIR or criminal cas en registered against you? ve you ever been arrested/deta minal case In view of gross act of conce at petitioner is not entitled to th mmissioner of Police and Oth CC 644 is not applicable to the fa

and an undertaking is given by d is found to be false or incomp cealed by him, his candidature m whatsoever shall be entertained ed the registration of FIRs aga gle Judge has rightly dismissed nt appeal be dismissed. r the parties and perused the wh passed by the learned Single Jud tance in the plea. It appears t lication 'form' seeking informat ed in any FIR or criminal case a ed/detained pursuant to same. tion relied "No". Relevant par he affidavit is as under:- se has ever NO ained in any NO alment, I am of the considered v he relief claimed for. Judgmen hers Vs. Sandeep Kumar, 2011 acts of the instant case as in the s

lete may d in inst hole dge In rt of view t in 1(4)

cas inv pet 25, Sec Arm CW dec said app lady app was is a of i app wri

7.

A p Single Judge sh dismissed since application form against him. H undertaking wa

se petitioner was ultimately acq volved in any serious offences. e instant case, however, offen titioner are under Sections 307, 27 of Arms Act and in FIR ctions 364, 452, 342, 323, 148, ms Act. It appears that trial is WP No.14863 of 2017 titled as S cided on 31.10.2018 is also not d case was related to mentionin plication form. Besides , petition dy working as an Anganwari Wo plication form through the help s not computer/net savvy. How an educated person. Besides, in information regarding involvem pointment in police force. There it jurisdiction. Petition is hereby perusal of the record as well hows that the writ petition filed e the appellant concealed the m by not providing particulars He suppressed the material facts as given by him, after filling

quitted and the candidate was Thus, a lenient view was taken. nces in cross-version against 341, 336, 427, 148, 149 IPC a R No.172 dated 24.11.2015 un , 149 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of still pending. Ratio of judgmen Sarla Vs. State of Haryana & O attracted to the instant case as ng of wrong category in the onl ner, in said case, was a poor wid orker. She had filled up the onl p of cyber cafe in the village. S wever, petitioner in the instant ca stant is a case of clear suppress ent in criminal cases while seek e is, thus, no ground to interfere y dismissed." as impugned judgment of learn d by the appellant has rightly b e true and relevant facts in s of the criminal cases registe s. Further as mentioned above, the application form in case

not In nder t in Ors line dow line She ase, sion king e in ned een ered , an

information furn information is fo he understands afterwards. Fur before the learn learned Single J

8.

In dated 25.04.201 present appeal is

9.

Pen

(SURESHWAR

JUDGE

October 03, 202 tripti

Wh

Wh

nished by him is found to be fa found to be concealed by him, hi that no claim, whatsoever sh rther, the judgments relied upon ed Single Judge as well and we Judge regarding the same. view of the above, we do not f 9 passed by the learned Single J s dismissed being devoid of any nding applications, if any, also st R THAKUR)

hether speaking/non-speaking : S hether reportable

: Y

false or incomplete or any mate s candidature may be cancelled hall be entertained in this reg n by the appellant were relied up agree with the finding given by find any infirmity in the judgm Judge. The same is upheld and merit. tand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE Speaking

erial gard pon