Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55400 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4783 of 2025 Petitioner :- Navneet Singh Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopal Khare Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Gopal Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment as Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces, SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination 2024. 3. It is contended that the online application form did not provide for any column for disclosure of the pending criminal case and hence, petitioner cannot be blamed for concealment of any material fact as to the pendency of the criminal case in which he has been implicated. It is submitted that the petitioner has disclosed on the very first opportunity when the document verification took place on account of his placement in the select list of the written examination that he was facing a criminal case. It is also submitted that the petitioner was permitted time to get somehow or the other criminal case disposed of but since it was not within the competence and control of the petitioner to get the criminal case disposed of as it is a matter of proceedings drawn before a criminal law court, petitioner could not get the matter decided. It is however submitted that the petitioner does not have criminal history and as far as criminal case in question is concerned, it is only on account of a village rivalry and enmity. It is also submitted that charges have not been framed in the said case and therefore, petitioner can also not be considered as a potential offender. It is further submitted that in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others: (2016) 8 SCC 471 in which the guidelines have been prescribed for vide paragraph nos.38.5 and 38.6 that the employer should exercise discretion whether giving employment to such a candidate would prejudice the establishment or not and hence, it is argued that the petitioner's application pending consideration may be directed to be disposed of. Paragraph nos.38.5 and 38.6 are reproduced hereunder: "38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. 38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case." 4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that policy of the respondents is not to offer appointment to such candidates who are implicated in the criminal case. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records I find merit in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the judgment has been pronounced by Supreme Court in the matter of Avatar Singh (Supra), while the employer has still a discretionary right to deny employment to such candidate who has been implicated in a criminal case but now there cannot be an absolute rule of denial. 6. In such above view of the matter therefore I consider it appropriate for the petitioner to make a fresh representation alongwith certified copy of this order before the respondent no.3 who is competent authority in the matter within a period of three weeks from today and in the event any such representation is made the authority shall look into and consider the same in the light of the judgment passed and guidelines provided in the case of Avatar Singh (Supra). 7. Authority shall also take into consideration a fact that the petitioner does not have any criminal history to his credit inasmuch as chargesheet has not been filed in the matter of criminal case for which the petitioner's appointment is being withheld. 8. Appropriate decision shall be taken within a maximum period of two months of production of certified copy of this order as directed hereinabove. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Deepika Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad