Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment(s) and order(s) dated 10.02.2020 and 04.02.2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/quashing-of-high-court-judgment-on-land-acquisition-proceedings/
No 723/2018 and Review Petition
No 672/2021 respectively, by which, the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the State and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petition
No 18388/2014 and setting aside the order cancelling the candidature of the appellant herein as Police Constable, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeals. Union of India & Ors.; (2016) 8 SCC 471 and other decisions, the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge by observing that if the candidate is found to be involved in a criminal case, even in a case of acquittal and/or even in a case where the employee has made truthfully declaration of a concluded criminal case the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, it cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/final-decision-and-disclosure-in-collegium-meetings/
Gangele, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred in allowing the appeal and quashing and setting aside the well- reasoned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the cancellation of candidature and non-appointment of the appellant as Police Constable. It is submitted that therefore the appellant could not have been denied the appointment merely on the ground that he was involved in a case for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and that too before 7 years and which resulted into acquittal.
It is also required to be noted that the appellant came to be acquitted for the offence under Section 498A of IPC vide judgment and order dated 30.10.2006 i.e., 7 years before he applied for the post of Constable. Under the circumstances and in the peculiar facts of the case, the appellant could not have been denied the appointment solely on the aforesaid ground that he was tried for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and that too, for the offence alleged to have happened in the year 2001 for which he was even acquitted in the year 2006 may be on settlement (between husband and wife). Neither there was any suppression of material fact on the part of the appellant nor he was convicted for any offence under the IPC.
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred in denying the appointment to the appellant on the post of Constable and has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
SHAH)…………………………………J.
Case Title: PRAMOD SINGH KIRAR Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (2022 INSC 1241)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008934-008935 / 2022
