LexTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS versus SK. NAZRUL ISLAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 1033 THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS v. SK. NAZRUL !SLAM (Civil Appeal No. 8638 of 2011) OCTOBER 13, 2011 [R. V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] Service law: Appointment - Post of constable - Name A B of respondent found place in the provisional select list - He appeared before the Medical Board and was found medically c fit - He was supplied verification roll for verification of his antecedents in which he was required to state whether he was ever arrested, detained or convicted which he answered in. the negative - On enquiry, authorities found that he was involved in a criminal case involving offences ulss. 1481323138014481 D 4271506, /PC and in that case, charge sheet was also filed in the court and he had surrendered there and was granted bail - Considering the same, the authorities did not appoint him as constable on the ground of concealment - OA filed by respondent dismissed - High Court allowed his writ petition E and held that authorities were not entitled to withhold the offer of appointment to the respondent and directed the authorities to issue the letter of appointment - However High Court observed that the appointment would be subject to decision in the pending criminal case - On appeal, held: The High F Court could not issue mandamus to the authorities to appoint the respondent as constable - Authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing constables were under duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate to find out whether he is suitable for the post of constable and so long as the candidate was not acquitted in a criminal case of the charges G u/ss.1481323138014481427/506, /PC, he could not possibly be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of constable - Order of the High Court is set aside - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226, 227. 1033 ·H 1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8638 of 2011. From the Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2010 of the High Court of Calcutta in WPST No. 1911 of 2008. Chanchal K. Ganguly and Abhijit Sengupta for the B Appellants. Ranjan Mukherjee, Mangaljit Mukherjee and Sarla Chandra for the Respondent. The Order of the Court was delivered by C A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This is an appeal against the order dated 14.09.2010 of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in W.P.S.T. No.1911 of 2008. D 3. The facts very briefly are that on 26.07.2007 the Police Directorate of West Bengal notified recruitment of Constables in the West Bengal Police from Howrah District. The name of the respondent was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Uluberia, Howrah, for recruitment as Constable and on E 1 ·1.09.2007 the provisional select list was notified in which the respondent's name found place at serial no.76. The respondent appeared before the Medical Board and was found medically fit. On 28.09.2007, the respondent was supplied a Verification Roll for verification of his antecedents and the respondent filled the Verification Roll and submitted the same to the Reserve F Officer, Howrah, on 29.09.2007. The Verification Roll of the respondent was sent.to the District Intelligence Branch, Howrah, on 08.10.2007. In the course of enquiry, it came to light that he was involved in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 148/323/380/448/427/506, IPC, in Bagnan PS Case G No.97 of 2007 and after investigation, the charge-sheet had already been filed in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, Howrah, and that the respondent had surrendered before the Court and had been granted bail. All these facts, however, had been concealed in column no.13 of H the Verification Roll submitted by the respondent in which he STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SK. NAZRUL ISLAM 1035 [A.K. PATNAIK, J.] was required tq state whether he was ever arrested, detained A or convicted. The authorities, therefore, did not appoint the respondent as a Constable. 4. Aggrieved, the respondent filed O.A.No.2500 of 2008 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal for a direction upon the authorities to issue appointment letter in his favour, B but by order dated 25.07.2008 the Tribunal declined to grant any relief to the respondent. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the respondent before the High Court and in the impugned order, the High Court held that the authorities were not e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.