M. Kamalakar v. State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 oI lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus duly setting aside the impugned Memorandum Rc.No. 01/Rect./Admn.3/2015-18 dated 20.B.2o1B issued by the 3rd respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, erroneous and in violation Articles .14 and 16 of the constitution of lndia and consequenfly hold that the petitioner is entitled to be selected and appointed as stipendiary cade Trainee Reserve sub lnspector APSP with benefits incidental thereto on the analogy of orders issued in respect of similarly situated persons from time to time. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 suspend the operation of the impugned Memorandum Rc.No. 01/Rect./Admn.3l2o1s-18 dated 20.8.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for selection to the post of SCT Reserve sub Inspector (Apsp) on the anarogy of orders issued in respect of similarly situated individuals. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.RAVICHANDRAN Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES (HOME) W.P.No.880 OF 2020 Between: M. Kamalakar, S/o. M. ggTfri:|,. Aged about 37 years, Un_Emptoyed, Rl/o Nandigama Village, Nallabelli Mandat, Wa-rangJl Ruiar. AND ...PETITIONER 1 State of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-22. The Director General of police, Telangana State, Hyderabad. The-State Level Porice Recruitment Board, Rep., by its chairman, Hyderabad- 500001. The Commissioner of police, Warangal. The Deputy Inspector General of police, Warangal Range, Warangal. 2 J 4 5 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particurarry one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus duly setting aside the lmpugned Memo No 369P/General/A2t2o1,, dated 0'r103/2019 and consequentiar rmpugned Memo No 791Blcenerar1A2t2o14, dt03062020 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, ifiegar, discriminatory, erroneous and in vioration Articres 1 4 and 16 0f the Constitution of lndia and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled to be selected and appointed as Stipendiary Cade Trainee Reserve Sub lnspector TSSP vet benefits incidental thereto on the analogy of orders issued in respect of similarly situated persons from time to time in pursuance of his provisional selection aid b pass such other order or orders as the Honble Court may deem fit and proper m the circumstances of the case. Prayer is amended as per C.O dt. 1010712023 in lA 0212020. 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 suspend the operation of the lmpugned Memo No 369P/GenerattA2l2019 dated 01032019 and consequential impugned Memo No 79'l8iGeneral/A212014, d103062020 issued by the 1st respondent and direct the respondents t0 consider the case of the petitioner for selection to the post of SCT Reserve Sub lnspector TSSP on the analogy of orders issued in respect of similarly situated individuals. lnterim prayer is amended as per C.O dt. 1010712023 in 1A0212020. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Between:

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-22.

2. The Director General of Police, Telangana State, Hyderabad. 3. The State Level Police Recruitment Board, Rep., by its Chairman, Hyderabad-

4. The Commissioner of Police, Warangal. 5. The Deputy lnspector General of Police, Warangal Range, Warangal. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND M. Kamalakar, S/o. M. Sammaiah, Aged about 37 years, Un-Employed, Fi/o Nandigama Village, Nallabelli Mandal, Warangal Rural. ...RESPONDE NTS/PETITIONER T I I 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 vacate the lnterim orders dt: 0810912023 in lA No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.880 of 2020. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.RAVICHANDRAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES (HOME) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER /./ t') HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 4O4OO OF 2018 AND WRIT PETITION No. a8O OF 2O2O COMMON ORDER: Petitioner claims to be a member of Backward class communily and having fully eligible and qualified, made an Application for the post of SCT SI/RSI pursuant [o the notification dated 03.11.2O11. He participated in the selection process and provisionaily, got selected to the said post with Registration No. 7l3ol7 , but however, the selection u.as cancelled uide memo dated 26.11.2014 on the ground that he involved in criminal cases i-e. Crime No. 77 of 2OO4 and 23 ol 2OO1, rvhich, according to him, u,ere falsely lodged when he nas at the age of 17 and 2I respectiveiy due to political and village rivalry. Il is stated, during the pendency of Crime No. 23 ol 2OO1, as precautionary method, the RDO, Mahabubabad bound over bo ti-r the groups for keeping peace and good behaviour in 2OOl uide Crime No. 33 of 2001 uncier Section 107 Cr.P.C. rvhen petitioner was minor. Thereafter, petitioner's father lodged a complaint uide Crime No. 76 of 2OO4 under Section 379 IPC against some individuals, rvho, in turn, as a counter 2 blast lodged a fake complaint registered as Crime No' 77 of 2OO4 under Section 379 IPC involving petitioner and his father' It is further stated thal petitioner rvas acquitted in both the cases referredtoincancellationorder,in2005and2ooTrespectively i.e. before the issuance ol recruitment notification and he is no \,\,av concerned u'ith the above offences as his name was falsely implicated only boring gruclge against his family'

2. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri V Ravichandran submitsthatinsimilarcircumstances,theHon,bleApexCorlrt in ltnion of India v, Ramesh Bishnoi (Civil Appeal No 9109 of 2019) considering the jucigment in Avtar Singh v Union of India (2O 16) 8 SCC 47 1 ) , held that Clause (xiv) of Section 3 of the .Iuvcnile Justicc (Care :rncl Prorection of Children ) Act' 2O 15 lays down guidelines for the Central and the State Governments statinE! that all past rccords of any child under the Juvenile Justrce Sys[em should be erased except in special circumslances. He thercfcrre, contended that without giving reasonable opportl.lnity to explain the above' petitioner's provisional selection u'as cancelled' The said cancellation was questioned in O.A-No. 7338 of 2014 rvhich was dismissed on 08.10.20 15 bv the Tribunal. Chailenging the same' petitioncr () J lrled Writ Petition No. 37322 of 2O15, while disposing of the same, uide order dated 16.04.2008, the Board was directed to consider the representation of petitioner duly taking into consrderation the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court tn Autar Singh's cdse (supra).

3. It is stated, in the light of the above order, petitioner rnade representation dated 2l.O4.2OIB to the Chairman, TSLPRB and pm 15.05.2018 to the DGP and Honble Minisrer for Home with a request to consider his case, but the .3.a respondent rejected the claim of petitioner uide order dated

20.08.2018 on the ground that an attempt was made to suppress the factual information in the attestation form. Learned counsel submits that petitioner did not mention in the relevant column in the attestation form submitted on

30.06.2024 under a bona fide impression that he was acquitted in criminal cases. Subsequently, on O2.O7.2024, petitioner himself voluntarily submitted three crime numbers in the attestation form wilh permission. Aggrieved by the order dated 2O.08.2O 18, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 404OO of 2018, wherein this Court passed interim order dated 09. 1 1.20 18 directing the lst respondent to re-consider the case of petitioner, 4 I how'ever, the government rejected his claim uide memo dated 01.03.2019 and communicated the same uide memo dated

06.03.2019 Chatlenging the above memo dated 0 t 03 20 19 4 . ' petitioner irled Writ Petition No 88O of 2O2O ' Pending both the WritPetitions,atrequestofpetitionerandsimilarly-placed person viz. A. .Jithender, their cases were placed before the Screcning Committee consisting of five me mbers on 22 02 '2O2O and both the cases w-ere rejected uid'e rrremc dated 03'06'2O2O' Therefore, petitloner hacl taken out I A'No 2 of 2O2O in Writ PetitionNo.880of2a2oseekingamenclmentofprayer.Thesaid Application vras allowed by order dated 10 07 2023'

5. Heard Government Pleader for Services (Home) on behalf of resPondenls. Thc question rt'hether the factum ol involvement in 6. crime and acquiLtal suppresseci is material lor not allowing petitioner to join the publrc sen'ice , ls no more res integro as iL has aiready becn clecided by various pronouncements' in the light of the guicielines issued rn the judgment io Aoatar Singh's corse. Learned counscl for petitioner has also brought to the ) t1 notice of this Court the fact that Sri M. Jithender, who is similarly-placed with that of petitioner, fiied Writ Petition No. 444 of 2O2l and this Court allowed the same in part on

26.04 .2023 . While deciding the said Writ Petition, this Court referred the judgment in Mankala Shiaa Kumar u. State oJ Telangana (202 1 SCC Online TS 2955), wherein piacing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Autar Singht c6rse, set aside cancellation of appointment and directed the authorities to appoint the canciidate by making the following observations: lCliits I l. 'l'ir.c cor,ir;siiiot-L oi oilence arnounr-s to an acquittal iil ol. Sectioli .i2oiEl Ci.P.C.. u,hich rs extracteci beloq.: ollences Ctmpoundrng '324. ij) Tiie i:cLr': r>rrsitiori oi an oilcnce ulder this section shali l-ra!.: lLre ellc.r ot at-] :LCI;LtiLt;ri ot llte accuscd i(ith u.hom tite oft'ence has i)i art('otrrpa,illr(.li:al.' rrrcrils -l irlrs. ,-', hcl ;:ir oiii:nce is ccn_rpor,inded, it results irr acriLlriLii] irtr nii piLl-p,-r:'i:s 'i'ir: interesiing issuc ivhich arises lirr lonsitieral:or: hr-lc rs i.i i-tt:ther sri<:it aaquiLial is a i--lean acquittal or ac<1ui!1a.i .)n acqliittal'. llr,iorrialrlL' :rcrluittal is rrct .lefined under crirninai i;ri., . iL is rr,rr:ed b,.. juriicii i l:lir ou r.rem ents. A clcal acquilrai is saicl ro l)e a..ir acallilLrrl on contesl aitd On merits of the <:ase irnlike an accLuiltal oi) tccl..l1iaa.i 3io1lr{ls lille ln a sitl.latioil uhere al accused is _eivel l)( riirirt oi-riorir;r ltr rr itcrr, ,.i'iLtcsses har.r' ,-.,aa,"|:., hosl_ilc. But ir-r h js casc. tlris CoLiti ts :irr cr,1:.r,t ! t-,i'il ,..'itlt .iit itcalr:tittal Orr t]icrits or reclinici,ii 'honourable ',) 6 grounds. Tl.ris is ar :rccllritr.rl iitr cornposiliorl 'lf ollences Cr'rtain r:lasses of offences a1e .ompouniiitllic rlnder Se(:lio. -l')f) Ct- ['C-'' Aq;rrlr lllerr: is suh r:lassilicatiorr r,1 r:oat:loilnd:rllle oifetrces ti'rdcr stlb scctions lilirnC i2J of Seclion l:20 ar l'.(1. !'l1l sea1.l(rn {1) iorr:r-s tests 'rlrir:h iit': i)cr-rilission ol alla L-.tl ll t :trlil Sulr secrion i2J cornpouridabie r\illti)iit co\n'rs offences .'lrlc'rl l'tt-c cortlpori;rdailir \'. l'.h iile iri:riti ssiotl of illc Court. l:r. 1l:rlrnr: is slid to btl ii lrtbi'c iitirnq atl'l r" r l\ i I lrr' registcred hiis i,:t rcacir i's ir;tira1 coiiaii.isli)l'. Iar'.'qD'--ari.i'c: oi- i)ilrtll]s (accuseci and ' lctilll r'com piltil:anr1 r'1,'c1':l:l 'r1l/r .t ":)!r1l-/J-otriisc \vitlrclra\tal oI ploset:uiion ia is rhc S;alc .rilll:it t.lll(lt'rral:irs thc reslro |rsibili I,r orl bchilif ,ll :ila !'ictrlll(sl ii) i)l-a,!aaLii{ iilc a''':llsa'i ?rnd ilriirg ttretn to jlistice. Lj,rt ltr tile s.iln. ti!]1e. 1.11s 1;1'' ;1-1;: k':rs ltr th:it- 1r'gislr.rtivc l.i:';cir:,tl ltit"r: ctr't:l,rll iz,r:r.l ('(ili:lril ailr:.(ls,ls ll(r'll;:a)Ll1t(li1D1q' un(icrstaDdaD!''' kiclril-rq i:i ! l::r'\ ii)1l rlltrr'i-.i l)l Lhi: rliiir;Ir'r-s arlil iLs r:orn pll iLnliai)ic clfeirras ate less seliotis iI]rpact on the sociei]'. lrl' lficllces a]1Ll ai: p]liatc j;' nillrtfe. Iiilrlilei ih(' oi-fen'-:es col.-fcll un(l(lf SuL;-section i11 lf Sr::tictt .llr) (l:'.P.Cl arrr tnirr)i rriietlccs 'r"i ir'rlJiai ii.l rrature aild nosiit i!t',i'lr,:,. linl:-ed rrrrpatt cr1 lllc sol j.')L! 'i iiitse i)ilal'lce: do not r-eculir :11,' i)i l-i:lj.j:li,ln r)f t)1'i l-'-i',il rlll":'iir'r, I .:1. Tlri' i.:tir f rrmr:ris:r::. oi Jrrr:r,i i;a', rli:ii. tl:i: par:', ).'i.(t{,.ll irs ii:i1 :-epa)Li alisi-',ili!1i-l'1 irlia'.il iollo\l.il1g obse]\itti(lll:i '-;t .'srciion 345 Cr i'.(l :,i l,J1a l.orlrrsilor'il r:,1 ir,' S;'l'.illrr 'l.l'i ('1 .i') (' 'Q- tt: ''l- '21.i:6 'i 11. b|r)aai p: itrr:l1tlt' Ih.tr. i:-.rlt-s fll. li;lsi.^ ali iile schrr:lt:' rs 1lra.l 1( ht rt, lltc illiltii 1l ;\ "slri iliiali! ol ;l i)rl"tit(.' lt,ii sc!iOLts. i (:).]tiJLrirlt(ial)il' rtiar.i!r:lr Dreselrl 1ta1!-lrc l5 1 Dr'1. r',i(-ilr R:L.ich :.ll !l'.r' lilal,lrrll::ri I{iglr C.oul1 rrl iiA.iEE\, VER\1A .'. S'iA'l E Oir L.i' \)!t}/t SCC onl-iirt' A11 l32ii ,:cnsiclerctl tlle r'.p1i 1- o j rl-1. l-e,-.' (litrrtnlsslc:r ')l iil'-ll3 'tll)i. iltallng '.'. ith ior- : t:a':itrrtq ti ci:l'.:9.:' si-'..:1 l-cq1ii.:e(l l:ldi::' a \1'rir petrt!()r iikll ,: 7 Secriorrs JqB A f PC ar:d Sections .i alci i of the Dorr n. prohibition Aci and it u as iibset'\fed as Linal0i: '23. An ariai-,.sis of Sectiorr l2U Cr.p.C and an exarnination oi ris lcgislall-t,,,e histon' sho,,1.s that usualh. trvo cl.lsses of cases ha\re iri:r,,n rn:lclc ilon colt-lpo u nda b jc, Thesc ai.c verv gra\re cases. ol- c.ases againsl lllc irultltc inierest. Wl.icn basicallv it is an individual $.ho is ageflet,e(i, rilose prc!isirlr haie -LLsuall.., been matle compounclab)e. j).irlj.rularii- \ hr:rr: tlit, oiicnr:t is ol rninc)!- nalure_ The Larv Comn-iission t\ i)ara 21 ai-t of trs .llsr RlJ.urr-i in conrleciion rr.irh S. 345 oI old, 1g9E (-oCe ol Crlrl:r:.rl prot:ciiiri r: ,.i hich r:orreslrclcis rvith the prescnt S. .12(_t Cr.P C. ir;,s i:xpr cssr:rl ir a,s lollurr s: "Tl",c broaci l)i:lnciple ihat iorrns tlte basis oi rhe pi,e sclt scherrre is tltiti r,\:hcrr: thc ol-fenae is essEntiali.,, of a pfi!,ate natul-e and lt:iat-ir,cli ri1)1 scrious. it is t:ol,lpourrl:rfril " 'tl). Thc pi:iiirlclr hcrero n as ir_,r.olvecl in ol'felces und?r

17. rn C.C.No.637 oi irrr-1er Ser:i.io. i2ijlli Cr.ir.C.'i-h,e il.litaioIler aitd rhe conplalnaitt irave arrir,,::ri ai a saiticnrent,rn.i coritpolL,d(,(i ihc rJt,rer)ccs uncier LokAciaial arr ar.ri clat.li, Oii.()i).i0i8 2A17 In tlr oi])iniorr ilf this court acquitlal ir thc instanl .asc h.rs 1o []it lrealcal ..s ii (iear.i :tLcqulttill, rnore pariicijlarlv. since thc offences are covered r:rrc|r Seclio:r il20 1l) Cr.p.C anal compo,,lndai]le r,.ithoirt pcrntssion of ti,e CoL.il. 'l'ire r.r:asoliitg ol tlle responde:-tt No.2 irl iliita 10 oI t]t,: jnrrir!l;tr:t.l e;ii.lr:r ilrai '...Ti-l(. rjolim mzrr,bg p161pij111i 11., selilti ll)c maii.r lb1. at-i', al,tr!,ri,-ratr,,;r r-n.f tiran rnnocencc oi the ar:cusr:rl. ,1)ui rt (lid noi ,iasii Oil tlte Crtnriral antecedents of iha acai.is{r(i'}. is ,.lrr..'ur:::nir:rl, prilr(,.sri and rririlropef. Sucl-r an obser-\,atiaJrl is iliso con1ra..'\ to '.lle p..r1 isioi.i i,rriier St:i:iio:t 320 Cr p.C ancl .juilqrricnr oi ii-.1 Stilt;-err,e CoLrrt il 1\VTaili SlIGIi,s c.,rsa l1 si.lirral. hr cr.le, to tesi the ch::i-acrir;r or r)al,,ilrc ai a jlj occe{lir}g airislrg out ol^ criminaJ la.'l,. altc aLrlllorit.. ()rLllltt 1o hzrvt': i..;rcj biisi. uniii]s1il]t(hng of ct-i 1i1tal Lau. tlte llalu|e Ol of h:na.js as to u h.eiilr:t tlrel iirc cotnpourtriai;ie Or not a[ci the clTeci of sL[:Il (:omDOSltiolt of ,iii:nr.l.s. 8 It. TIte ner:t rioitseclr.tnr-ral issue is,,rrl_,.rt is litr.,rift,ci r_tl stlpilression of in\.(rlic!Ieltr..rittc(l..lii1:rl ir: titi,, cr-i|r_titilri .asr: b\ rhr: ilciJttoltet " Thc: olitltccs as al.isitLjsscri suj)ra at 1. I l.i:.ial irt:rl I6 conll)oLlitdaillr. !ai ltittlLllt ir)r g11 jj i;1,,.6111,q11yteit1 lt Sir(.jt ,.t.ltlli.tli aitric autii ac(iiriit,-ll ,r.is (ljsclar!i:.(l ll r.,Ol]ld it()i lta\L iL.tIi.r..j ltir S1:.!iirrlolt l-lr(: sLtppressior] i1 ie1lr, js l]oJ o1 .r m rtiual 1,rr.- -,1\l r-]lr :..s:)ot.taicltls r\\i().2 shoaLlri, lr ati itlrba l:ii;iies. har.e r_.ot.iiirneci tie lap:se t1.rr::... M i1 :-u,crls io urt porrrlr,ci our 1l-tart th(r r.,ii it)ni,r ii) l_.tjL .xplallatio| da1c.] C2.i:), 2()20 sfatc(j tlrat rir rhe lorrr:t rirr,., rrioadr:d br, hiin, lhe rcli\-an1 coir_lmns .,\.itlj r_-gat al to criliiilal oiicnt{r.r ,,1.as itoL titer_e irui rluc io l:t!- r,f kr:oi,;icrlgc lrl hti(j jrilir.;:,i.:ll i.i(,r,t.r ri:r: i:,r;L:i;.r,r lrith ri: speart to cl]rti.al car.s( altd:-elafecl coiUt:rls. Suair axiti.-rl.riio[ r)i il].. i).triia.e- ts ii,t ton,.,]itttitt t.r r.ci]]e i.J:1 crt cii,siol_t illdr -:i.:iti)fl_>ston ol r l aal-in,1L ron !\ats t_.il]i(.tlerrttoit;lI

7. Here, in the instant case, petitioner rl:as acquittecl bl giving benefit of doubt as prosecution miserabl]- fairecl to prove the charges levelied against him, r.r.hen once petltioner \vas acquitted, the entire crimL. regisrefcd against him goes. Furthe r, Section 3 txiv) of the 20 i 5 Acr clearly postlllates that ail the past records of any child under the Juvenile Justice Slstem should be erased exccpt in spccial crrcumstances. Hora.cver, the Screening Committee did not take in[o consideration the said provision and also closure ol. thc case and without recording any reasons, passed impugned order dated 03.06.2O2O rejecring r.epresentarion oI petitioner. Petilioner rvas irrvolvr-c in crlrninal cases in 2004 and 2001 () when he was aged 17 and 21 which ended in acquittal in 2005 and, 2OO7 respectively. Provisional. seiection of petitioner was in 2O11, i.e. by the time, he applied for the job' he was acquitted' It is not a case of suppression of pendency of criminal case'

8. In view of the above observations and also in view of theguideiinesissuedinAvtarSfngh'sccse(supra)andthe observations made in Writ Pelition No 444 of 2027' both the WritPetitionsaredisposedofdirectingrespondentstoappoint petitioner as Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub-lnspector (Civil)' The claim of monetary and seniority beneltts are rejected as selection of petitioner was provisional and subject to veriltcation of his antecedents. Respondents are further directed to send petitioner for training in the next training camp No costs' g. Conse quently, the miscellaneous Applications' if any shall stand closcd SD/-MOHD.ISMAIL NT REGISTRAR AS //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER The PrinciPal Secretary to ieiangana,'secretariat, HYdera Government, Home Department' State of bad-22 TheDirectorGeneralofPolice'TelanganaState'Hyderabad' The Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board' Hyderabad-500001 3 4. The Commissioner of Police' Warangal' The Deputy lnspector General of Police Warangal Range' Warangal 5 To, 1 2 u$-

6. One CC to SRI V.RAVICHANDRAN, Advocate. [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to cP FOR SERVICES (HOME), High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies. BSK BS $ HIGH COURT NBK,J I I DATE D : 1 310212025 COMMON ORDER WP.No.40400 of 2018 & WP.No.880 OF 2020 I I , t1c J Ir, i. ( -)lig 21Fiii.ie5 * D f ,sr,n tC d- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS c{4 W