Ganaveni Thirupathi v. The State Of Telangana

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION NO: 24368 OF 2020 Between:

Ganaveni Thirupathi, S/o.G.Gangamallu, Aged 29 R/o.H.No.4-68, Gopulapur Village, Buggaram Mandal, Karimnagar District) yea rs, Jagtial Occ. Un-Employee, District. (Erstwhile ...PETITIONER AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

Telangana State Level, Poilce Recruitment Board (TSLPRB), Rep. by its Chairman, Lakdi-ka-Pul, Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any Writ, order or direction more especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the lmpugned Memorandum in Rc. No.222lRectt./Genl.1/20 19, Dt.17l08l 2020 ot the 2nd Respondent, whereby cancelling the Provisional Selection of the Petitioner vide Reg.No.1216936 to the post of SCTPC (TSSP) pursuant to the Recruitment Notification with Rc. No.88/Rect./Admn.1/2018, Dt.31/05/2018 as illegal, arbitrary, u nco nstitutio na I and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently by setting aside the lmpugned lt/emorandum of the 2nd Respondenl, D1.17 tOBl2O20, direct the Respondents to forthwith Consider and Appoint the Petitioner to the post of SCTPC (TSSP) pursuant to his Provisional Selection.

lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to forthwith Consider and Appoint the Petitioner (Re9.No.1216936) to the post of SCTPC (TSSP) pursuant to his Provislonal Selection in Recruitment Notification with Rc. No.BB/Rect./Ad mn.'1l2018, Dt.31/05/2018, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C. HARI PREETH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SPECIAL GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.V. RAMA RAO, STANDING COUNSEL FOR TSLPRB The Court at the admission stage made the following: ORDER

HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI W.p.No.24368 of 2020

ORDER

This writ petidon is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both pafties.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "to issue any Writ, order or direction mote especially one in the nature of !$7rit of Mandamus declaring the Impugned Memorandum in Rc.No.222lRectt /Gen.t/2079, Dt t7 /08/2020 of the 2^,r respondent whereby cancelling the provisional Selection of the Petitioner vide Reg No.1216936 to the posr of SCTpC TSSp pursuant to the Recruitment Notification l,ith Rc.No.gg/R ect./ A<lmn.7/ 20lg Dt 3l/05/2078 as illegal, arbitrarv un-constitutional and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently by setting aside the Impugncd Memoran<lum of the 2.d respondcrrt Dt 77 /08/2020 direct the r€spondents to forthrvith consider and appoint the pctitioner to the post of SCTpC (TSSIT) pursuant to his Provisional Selection and to pass such other order or ordcrs as rhis Hon'ble Court mav deems fit iust ancl proper in the circumstances of the case."

Heard Sri C.Hari preeth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government preader appearing for the respondents.

4. It has been contended by the petirioner that he is fuly eligible and qualified to be appointed for the post of police Constable. While so, the respondents have issued a recruitment Notification on 31.05.2018 and pursuant to the said Notification, he has responded to the same and after undergoing regular selection process, he was selected for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable in Telangana State Special police (herein after

referred to as ('TSSP") on 24.09.20t9. In the process of selection, he has to fill up one attestation form informing as to whether any criminal case is pending against him and he has hlled the said attestation form making it very clear that no criminal case is pending against him.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that earlier the criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in S.C.No.128 of 2016 and the competent criminal Court acquitted the petitioner on 08.04.2019 itself and, therefore, as on the date of filling up of attestation form, no criminal case is pending against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has not disclosed about the said criminal case wherein the petitionet was acquitted. Be that as it may, the respondents have issued a Showcause Notice on 25.02.2020 asking him as to why the provisional selection of the petitioner should not be cancelled on the ground of suppression of pendency of criminal case against him. pursuant to the said Show-cause Notice, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 07.03.

2020 making it very clear that as on the date of submission of attestation form, no criminal case is pending against him and requested the respondents not to take any action against him pursuant to the Show-cause Notice dated 25.02.2020. But, the respondents, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner have cancelled the provisional selection of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 77.08,2020. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is file d.

J

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner futther contended that the petitioner has not suppressed anything, as admittedly, no criminal case is pending against him as on the date of frlling up of attestation form' The petitioner has not disclosed about criminal case registered against him. Therefore, appropriate ordets be passed in the writ Petidon directing the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitionet for appointment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (TSSP)' ?. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that in Avtar Singh v.

Union of India and othersl, the Flon'ble Supreme Court had elaborately considered an identical issue wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court at pata '38' gave certain elaborate clirections as to how the authorities have to deal with fespect to the suppression of facts in respect of minot criminal cases and whether there is a chatge of moral turpitude or not? In view of the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said case, let the case of the petitioner also be considered in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (1 supra). He further contended that in Avtar Singh v' Union of India and others 2 ^t pua (4' of the iudgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the very same issue in Avtar Singh's case (1 supra).

Therefore, approptiate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to re-consider the case of the , (2016) 8 SCC 471 ' Civil {ppeal No.lR-48 ol 20l?dt.l5-11-201- (arising fiom SLP (C) No.

I petitioner afresh in terms of the law laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in above said cases and pass appropdate orders in accordance with law.

8. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has contended that the information sought from every selected candidate in the attestation form asking whether any criminal case is pending against the petitioner, at arry point of time, it does not mean that it amounts to pendency of any criminal case only at the time of frlling up of attestation form and the petitioner was not asked to give the status of pendency of criminal case as on the date of filling up of attestation form. Therefore, the petitioner has, admittedly, suppressed about pendency of a criminal case against him and the same amounts to supptession of facts. Therefore, the respondents have rightly reiected the case of the petitioner. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the respondents have cancelled the provisional selection of the petitioner without following the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (1 supra) and Avtar Singh's case (2 supra). Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in tenns of thc guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

) the above two referred cases and the impugned order is riabre to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. The respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioner in terms of the law laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh,s case (1 supra) and Avtar Singh,s case (2 supra) in respect ofsuppression of facts and also in view of acquittal of the petitioner bv the competent criminal Court and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a reasonable period of time, preferably rvithin a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copv of this order.

10. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

11. Pending miscellaneous closed.

petitions, if any, shall stand To, //rRUE copy t t'",-" itti!?fitfftBirsrfii8 SECTIbN OFFICER ' IlSJr:!:ff, Secretary, Home Department, State of rerangana, secretariat, , Ii*"rPiS:gliiild"JiigrJ: Stare Lever, porice Recruitment Board (rsLpRB),

3. One CC to Sri. C. Hari F

4. Twoccs to Gp ror ro;'""tn'Advocate lopucl s. Two c.D. copies e' High court for the State of relangana. [oUTJ Prk \ .j--

HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212020 TA S tl I e d 11JAil2o2l c)t

ORDER

*- '.i Cr WP.No.24368 of 2020 Atlowing the WP.

without costs.

2.\