Aman Kumar v. Union of India & Anr

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: “a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside and/or quashing the impugned letter dated March 20, 2018 (Annexure-P-13) issued by Respondent No.2 whereby Petitioner’s provisional offer of appointment to the post of Asst. Sub Inspector/Exe in CISF was withdrawn; b. If any direction or order exists against the Petitioner, issue any writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to cancel and revoke the same; c. In alternative to prayer (a), direct the Respondent No.2 to inform the petitioner about the position/decision of the Standing Screening Committee within a period of one week from today; d. Issue any writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner”.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted his online application for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector (in short „SI‟) in Delhi Police & Central Armed Police Force and for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (in short „ASI‟) in Central Industrial Security Force (in short „CISF‟) in CISF examination, 2016. The result of the examination was declared on 28.07.2016 pertaining to Paper-I for the post of SI in Delhi Police, CAPFs and ASI in the CISF examination 2016. The petitioner also cleared his Physical Endurance Test (PET) on 15.09.2016. Meanwhile, on 18.12.2016 the petitioner also cleared Mains/Paper-II. On 07.04.2017, he was called for Detailed Medical Examination (DME) and Document Verification (DV). It is claimed by the petitioner that he was declared medically fit and his documents were duly verified. Accordingly, the petitioner was recommended for appointment to the post of ASI in CISF in September, 2017. The petitioner was provisionally selected for an appointment of ASI/Exe in CISF on 08.01.2018. The petitioner was called to report on 10.02.2018 for basic training. It is further pointed out that the petitioner was acquitted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (in short „CJM‟) in the case arising out of FIR No.120 dated 28.03.2017 and he had informed respondent No.2 about his acquittal in the criminal case. The petitioner thereafter received a communication dated 20.03.2018 informing him that the provisional offer of his appointment stands withdrawn and the case of the petitioner would be forwarded to the Standing Screening Committee constituted for examining the case for the suitability of the petitioner in CISF. The petitioner was also informed that the decision of the Standing Screening Committee would be intimated to him.

3. The grievances of the petitioner are two fold, firstly that the petitioner has not been informed about his fate by the Standing Screening Committee since 20.03.2018, secondly that he apprehends that Standing Screening Committee would not follow the Central Government (Ministry of Home Affairs) Guidelines of 01.02.2012 entitled “Policy Guidelines for Considering cases of candidates for appointment in CAPFs pendency of criminal cases against candidatesthe effect of ”.

4. Counsel for respondent nos.[1] & 2 who enters appearance on an advance copy submits that apprehension of the petitioner is baseless and unfounded. She submits that in all matters the respondent follows the necessary guidelines. She further submits that every effort would be made to decide the case of the petitioner expeditiously.

5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. The writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself in view of the stand taken by learned counsels for the parties.

7. Mr.David, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before us that despite acquittal of the petitioner, the provisional offer of his appointment stands withdrawn. It has also been submitted before us that despite his case having been forwarded to the Standing Screening Committee, he has not been informed about the outcome. Mr.David has also submitted that the petitioner apprehends that the Standing Screening Committee would not follow the guidelines dated 01.02.2012. The submissions of Mr.David, counsel for the petitioner have been refuted by the counsel for the respondent nos.[1] & 2 who had entered appearance on an advance copy. It has been submitted that necessary guidelines are followed by the Standing Screening Committee in all the matters. On the question of delay, counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Standing Screening Committee would decide the case of the petitioner expeditiously.

8. In view of the stand so taken, we dispose of the writ petition binding the respondents to the stand taken in Court. We also direct the Standing Screening Committee to decide the case of the petitioner within a period of not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

9. As prayed, with these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

10. Dasti to the parties, under signature of the court master. G.S.SISTANI, J. SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J MAY 04, 2018 ssc