HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13249 / 2015
Sukhveer Singh s/o Balkaran Singh, age about 29 years, b/c Jat
Sikh, r/o Pakka Bhadwa, District Hanumangarh.
1. The State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Department of
Home, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Inspector General of Police, Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar (Raj.)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.N.K.Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Anil Kumar Bissa
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-
“A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
impugned selection list dated 26.03.2015 (Annexure-
5) may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary, unjust
and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.
B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondents may kindly be appointed the petitioner in
the list of final selection of the candidates for the post
C. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which
this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be
passed in favour of the petitioner.
(2 of 5)
D. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be
allowed with costs.”
2. It is an undisputed fact in the writ petition that a case
arising out of FIR No.132/2014 dated 14.05.2014 is pending
against the petitioner and the same is under Section 304 IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the
controversy is squarely covered by the earlier judgment of this
Court rendered in the case of Manglesh Soni Vs. State of
Rajasthan Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11023/2016
decided on 28.11.2017), wherein the following order was
“1. Petitioner has preferred this writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for the following reliefs :-
“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this
writ petition may kindly be allowed :-
A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the
order dated 01.09.2015 received on 14.09.2016
may kindly be quashed and set aside.
B. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the
respondent may kindly be directed to allow the
petitioner to join on the post of Laboratory
Assistant in the pursuance of order dated
C. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the
respondents may kindly be directed to give
joining/ appointment on the post of Laboratory
Assistant from the date whereby his colleagues
were allow to join with all consequential benefits
in the pursuance of order dated 11.12.2015.
(3 of 5)
D. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction
which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
E. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly
be allowed with costs.”
2. Learned counsel for the respondent
states that respondents issued advertisement No.
459 dated 01.07.2013 and another advertisement
No.495 dated 10.07.2013 inviting applications for
the post of Laboratory Assistant. The petitioner
participated in the selection process. The
provisional merit list was declared on 11.12.2015
and thereafter the final select list was declared
and the petitioner being at serial No.342 was
declared successful and has secured 51.89%
marks. The petitioner has been disqualified by the
respondents on the ground that he did not
provide for the police verification report as called
for. The petitioner was however, terminated from
services on 01.09.2016 on account of not
submitting the proper information as per the
advertisement condition No.7. The information
pertaining to the criminal case was that the FIR
No.287/15 was lodged against the petitioner on
29.08.2015 under Section 498A, 304B and 406 of
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
argued that condition No.7 was not applicable as
the necessary information was furnished by the
petitioner and for the reasons beyond his control,
the police report was subsequently prepared.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
stated that condition No.7 will not apply in this
case. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner
the Rule 12 which defines character even the ex-
(4 of 5)
prisoners on their conduct, if the offence is not
involving moral turpitude are to be qualified.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
states that conviction is yet to happen and mere
trial shall not disqualify the present petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that
the petitioner has committed no crime, which
would come within the periphery of breaching the
moral turpitude and hence, the termination order
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has
however refuted the same by virtue of Rule 12
note (1) which prohibits the crimes of violence
from being entitled for the purpose of
employment. Learned counsel for the respondent
has further stated that admittedly the Section
304B comes within the purview a condition No. 5
and thus, even if the petitioner is said to have
given the complete information then also the
petitioner would be disqualified as per the circular
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has
however shown from his reply that the circular /
policy governing the field dated 15.07.2016 and
as per the circular / policy which he has
separately shown the candidate shall be
debarred, if he commits offence falling under
Chapter of 16 and Chapter 17 of the IPC.
7. After hearing counsel for the parties and
perusing the record of the case, this court is of
the opinion that the universal policy across the
board is in vogue and the same has not been
challenged by the petitioner. The policy is
mentioned in the reply, in which, the respondents
have come out with the specific case that as per
(5 of 5)
the circular / policy dated 15.07.2016, the
petitioner stands disqualified on account of the
FIR pending against him with the offences under
Section 304B and 498A. On a bare perusal of
condition No.5 itself shows that the candidates
uniformly have been debarred if the case against
them was pending at the time of appointment
under Chapter 16 or Chapter 17 of the IPC. The
argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that merely the trial is going on and conviction is
yet to happen, does not hold ground as the
circular has been made applicable on all under
trials across the board and has been uniformly
made applicable on all the candidates.
8. In light of the aforesaid discussion, no
interference in the present writ petition is called
for, hence, the present misc. petition is
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that
admittedly a case under Section 304 IPC is pending against the
petitioner and the same attracts debarring of the petitioner, as
offences under Chapter 16 or 17 of the Indian Penal Code are
debarred, as per circular dated 15.07.12016.
5. In light of the aforequoted order, the present writ
petition is dismissed in the same terms.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.