Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/1257/2008 of ARUN KUMAR Vs STATE on 29 December 2008
29.12.2008 Present: Mr Sunil Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Mr.J.K.Verma, Deputy A.G., for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to join as police officer,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Mr Sunil Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Mr.J.K.Verma, Deputy A.G., for the respondents.
This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to join as police officer, though the criminal case is pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Punjab Police (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Rules, 2007 do not apply in case of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner has applied before enforcement of these rules and the notification was issued under Article 348 of the Constitution of India on 25[th] March, 2008.
The petitioner has applied for appointment to the post of Constable. However, he has not been allowed to join because of the pendency of the criminal case. The present rules provide that in case a candidate, against whom investigation or trial is pending, the offer of appointment may be held in abeyance for up to a period of two years or until he is cleared during investigation or trial, whichever is earlier. Such a candidate shall not be deemed to have become over-age on this account. The post may be filled up from the waiting list and the candidate, if cleared, will be offered a subsequently occurring vacancy. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support relies upon Secy., Deptt. Of Home Secy., A.P. and Others versus B.Chinnam Naidu, (2005) 2 SCC 746 and has relied upon Paragraph-3, wherein the Tribunal held “Therefore, in terms of the instructions he had incurred disqualification and was unfit for employment under the Government. The Tribunal held that respondent was not a person of good conduct and character, since he had suppressed material information while filling up the attestation form and did not deserve for any relief. Accordingly, the Original Application was dismissed. The learned counsel for the present petitioner submits that he had not suppressed but had given the details. Looking into the provisions of rule and various dates when the petitioner was selected, we find that the rules are applicable in case of the petitioner. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment, relied upon by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot get any relief at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, so also the pending application.
( Jagdish Bhalla ), C.J.
December 29, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)