HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2549/2015
Bhagirath Chuyal S/o Shri Asha Ram Chuyal, Aged 36 years,
resident of infront street of Shri Vishwakarma Mandir, Pugal Road,
1 Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited through
Managing Director, Vidhyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar,
2. The Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran
Nigam Limited Vidhyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
3. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited through Managing
Director, New Power House, Jodhpur.
4. Kishore Swami S/o Shri Gauri Shankar Swami, Village
Gomatia, Post-Bandhanau, Tehsil Sardarshahar, Churu.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.B.K.Vyas, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.K.Vyas and Mr.H.S.Gaur, Advocate
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
The prayer in the present petition is to give the appointment
to the petitioner on the post of Junior Accountant from the date
his immediate lower meritorious respondent No.4 was appointed,
with all consequential benefits.
The petitioner had applied in pursuance to the advertisement
Annexure-1 for the post of Junior Accountant. The petitioner being
eligible in all respect was allowed to participate in the selection
process. His name was found mention in the merit list at serial
(2 of 4)
No.53 as per the revised merit list dated 14.02.2015. However, he
was not issued any appointment order, whereas, the persons
junior to him were given appointment.
Reply has been filed. As per the reply, the petitioner was
involved in two criminal cases for the offence under Sections
498A, 406 323 of the IPC and another under Section 420 of the
Rejoinder has been filed. As per the rejoinder, the petitioner
was selected previously in the same Department. His services
were terminated on the ground that he did not disclose the fact of
FIR under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 of the IPC having been
registered against him. Hence, the second FIR under Section 420
of the IPC was registered by the Department for not disclosing the
pendency of the criminal case. Thereafter, the petitioner applied
afresh against the fresh advertisement. This time, the petitioner
had not concealed any fact and had brought the fact about the
two above cases to the notice of the respondent-Authority. In any
case, the petitioner has since been acquitted of the charges under
Section 498A 406 of the IPC.
The Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of
India ors. (Special Leave Petition [C] No. 20525/2011)
decided on 21.07.2016 has specifically held as under :-
“(2) While passing order of termination of services or
cancellation of candidature for giving false information,
the employer may take notice of special circumstances of
the case, if any, while giving such information.
(3) The employer shall take into consideration the
Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the
employee, at the time of taking the decision.
(3 of 4)
(4) In case there is suppression or false information of
involvement in a criminal case where conviction or
acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the
application/verification form and such fact later comes to
knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse
appropriate to the case may be adopted : –
(a) In a case trivial in nature in which conviction
had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at
young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed
would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for
post in question, the employer may, in its
discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false
information by condoning the lapse.”
Secondly, the petitioner has been denied appointment on the
ground that two criminal cases are pending against him.
Admittedly, the petitioner has since been acquitted of the charges
under Sections 498A 406 of the IPC and another case under
Section 420 of the IPC was registered against him by the
In the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1603/2011) decided on
27.08.2012, the Jaipur Bench of this Court has observed that
criminal case arising out of the matrimonial dispute is not a case
of moral turpitude and denial of appointment on the ground of
pendency of such case should not come in the way of the
It is evident that the judgments rendered by the Apex Court
in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) as well as Jaipur Bench of this
Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) were not before the
authorities at the time when the order rejecting the candidature of
the petitioner for appointment was passed.
(4 of 4)
In view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Bhuta Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan
ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal [Writ] No. 442/2016)
decided on 08.08.2016 as well as judgments rendered in the
case of Avtar Singh (supra) and Ashok Kumar (supra), this Court
deems it proper to remand the matter to the competent authority
in this case for passing the fresh appropriate order with regard to
the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of
Junior Accountant within three months from today.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR), J.