SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manglesh Soni vs State Of Raj.& Ors on 28 November, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11023 / 2016
Manglesh Soni S/o Shri Suja Ram Soni, R/o Near Ward No.20,
Behind Hinglaj Temple, Gali No.2, Balotra, P.S. Balotra, Tehsil
pachpadra, District Barmer (Raj.)

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
(Public Health) Medical and Health Services Jaipur, (Raj.)

2. Director (Public Health) Medical and Health Services, Jaipur
(Raj.)

3. Additional Director (Administration), Medical and Health
Services, Rajasthan Jaipur.

4. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jodhpur (Raj.)

—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) :Dr. Nikhil Dungawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Biss, AGC
__
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
28/11/2017

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 11.12.2015.

C. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the
(2 of 4)
[CW-11023/2016]

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.

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

IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that

condition No.7 was not applicable as the necessary information
(3 of 4)
[CW-11023/2016]

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-

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 is bad.

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 / policy.

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.

(4 of 4)
[CW-11023/2016]

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 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 dismissed.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

sudheer

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh