AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. - (1.)HEARD learned Counsel for the peti­tioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.)THE petitioner was selected as a Police Constable and during verifica­tion he filed an affidavit disclosing his involvement in two criminal cases. On the strength of such discloser the candidature of the petitioner came to be can­celled by the Superintendent of Police vide order dated 29.12.2006.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner moved a representation and also filed a writ petition before this Court bringing on record the fact that the petitioner in one of the cases has been acquitted in 2003 much before the selection and in the second case he was acquitted on 25.11.2006. The aforesaid averment is found in the representation which was filed by the petitioner before the authority concerned copy whereof is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The impugned order has been passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur on 25.3.2007 recording that the second case is still pending trial before the concerned Court in Kushi Nagar.

(3.)LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order re­flects complete non-application of mind inasmuch as the petitioner had cate­gorically stated about the acquittal order dated 25.11.2006 and the same has also been brought on record in this writ petition as Annexure 3. The aforesaid fact has been stated in para 15 of the writ petition to which there is no denial in the caunter-affidavit. In para 8 of the counter-affidavit it is simply stated that the contents of paragraphs 14 to 17 are matter of record.