Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAN VIJAY versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ran Vijay v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 54990 of 2005 [2007] RD-AH 137 (3 January 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54990 of 2005

Ran Vijay Yadav

Versus

The State of U.P. and others

Counsel for the Petitioner Sri Yatindra

Counsel for the Respondents Standing Counsel

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner has approached this Court requesting therein that writ in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to forthwith send the petitioner for training of U.P. Police Constable for which post he has been duly selected and has been placed in the merit list/select list and further after training in question is completed then placement be accorded to him by offering appointment.

Brief background of the case as mentioned in the writ petition is that applications were invited for making selection and appointment for the post of U.P. Police Constable. Petitioner has also applied from the Recruitment Center Deoria and was declared successful in physical test, written test, interview and medical test etc. Petitioner was placed at serial no. 70 of the merit list and thereafter final list was declared on 08.05.2005. Petitioner was asked to furnish affidavit for verification of character and antecedent. Petitioner while filing affidavit made categorical disclosure that he has been arrayed an accused in Case Crime No. 338 of 2003 under Sections 307/323/504/506 IPC at Police Station Gola, Gorakhpur and it was also mentioned that petitioner has been charge-sheeted in the said criminal case and same is pending for trial before the competent Court. Thereafter petitioner was not sent for training. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of State-Respondents plea has been taken that as criminal case has been registered against the petitioner and as said criminal case is pending for trial as such no further steps have been undertaken qua sending the petitioner for training and it has also been mentioned in para-4 of the counter affidavit that as petitioner has made incorrect declaration that he has not been arrested in any criminal case nor he has been surrendered, as such no relief can be accorded to petitioner.

To this counter affidavit rejoinder affidavit has been filed and therein statement of facts mentioned in the counter affidavit has been disputed and that of writ petition has been reiterated.

Supplementary affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed. Alongwith supplementary counter affidavit copy of affidavit filed by the petitioner has been annexed and the said affidavit discloses that petitioner had disclosed that he has been arrested and charge-sheeted in criminal case and same is pending before the competent court.

After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.

Sri Yatindra, counsel for the petitioner has contended with vehemence that rightful disclosure has been made by the petitioner qua criminal case and said criminal case at no point of time would ever adversely effect the claim of the petitioner, and thus, final decision ought to have been taken by the Superintendent of Police, Deoria in this respect and any further delay is unjustifiable and petitioner should be directed to be sent for training.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that petitioner is an accused in criminal case and as such rightfully no decision has been taken for sending the petitioner for training.

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which is emerging is to the effect that petitioner has undertaken the examination and has qualified for being appointed on the post of Constable. Qua character verification petitioner has disclosed each and every material information qua his arrest, qua his being charge sheeted and qua the pendency of the matter for trial. Question as to whether petitioner is entitled to be sent for training or not has to be adverted to, even in the event of criminal case being pending for trial. Authorities are to take positive decision as to whether said criminal case would adversely affect the claim of the petitioner in any way or not. Till date no positive decision has been taken by the Superintendent of Policy, Deoria on this aspect of the matter.

In these circumstances and in this background Superintendent of Police, Deoria is directed to take positive decision after due report is called for from Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur and District Magistrate, Gorakhpur in this respect,  qua character and antecedent of petitioner as to whether petitioner can be sent for training or not within two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Needless to say that reasoned order be passed in this respect.

With the above direction present writ petition is disposed of.

Dated : 3rd January, 2007

Dhruv


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.