Narindra Singh v. The State Of Punjab And Others

1. Narindra Singh belonging to Economically Backward Classes applied for one of the posts of Assistant Sub Inspector, Police. There were in all 240 posts which were advertised. After necessary test, he was selected in 1989. One Manjit Singh also belonging to the same class, challenges his selection by filing CWP No. 451 of 1990 and the several attempts were made by the petitioner to seek appointment letter thereafter but in vain.

2. He also approached the Director General of Police, who wrote a letter (Annexure P5) addressed to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda to appoint the petitioner. In spite of that, no appointment letter was issued and the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition.

3. The stand of the official respondents is that on police verification, antecedents of the petitioner were not found up to the mark to appoint him Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. As per the report obtained on police verification, the petitioner was not possessing good moral character. He was ‘dada’ type student leader in his college days and two criminal cases were registered against him under Sections 452/353/332/186/34 IPC and U/S 307/34 IPC respectively. He was also reported to be of quarrelsome nature.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that criminal Court did not frame any charge under Section 452, but he was simply charged under Section 323 IPC. With respect to the case registered under Section 307/34 IPC, the stand of the petitioner is that he was acquitted, the portion of judgment of criminal court has been reproduced in the writ petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the part we are of the opinion that no case is made out for granting to the petitioner. Under Rule 12.4 of the Police Rules was it necessary for the authorities to verify character antecedents of the candidate before his appointment to the Police force. The report of verification obtained by the police department cannot be brushed aside. The extract from the judgment of the criminal Court acquitting the petitioner under Section 307/34 IPC shows that on account of discrepancies in the evidence produced, by way of abundant caution giving the benefit of doubt. Narindra Singh petitioner was acquitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it was also mentioned in the judgment that in this part of the country, there was tendency to implicate the persons and it should be given weightage and acquittal of petitioner should be considered as honourable. This contention cannot be accepted. Apart from this occurrence which resulted registration of case under Section 307 IPC in the year 1979, there was another case registered against the petitioner in 1988. The overall assessment made by the department on the basis of antecedents was that the petitioner should not be appointed. By mere selection, no right has vested in the petitioner to claim appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that during all these years, the petitioner was initially ad hoc teacher and his services were subsequently regularised and if the petitioner was suitable for the post of a teacher, it cannot be said that he is not suitable for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. This contention cannot be accepted. It is not clear from the record now produced as to whether such antecedents of the petitioner were available to the department when he was appointed as ad hoc teacher or when services as such were regularised. Be that as it may, moral character required for the police force may be of higher level as it is a disciplined force. No further comments in this respect need be made, suffice to say that the petitioner has not been found suitable on the basis of his antecedents for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. This writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

5. Petition dismissed.