SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajesh Kumar Son Of Shri Nawal … vs The State Of Rajasthan on 13 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5607/2020

Rajesh Kumar Son Of Shri Nawal Singh, Aged About 37 Years,
Resident Of Opposite New Collectorate, Patpara Mohalla,
Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum
Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Department, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sawai
Madhopur.
4. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur.
—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nripendra Sinsinwar.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sanjana Shresth for Mr. C.L.

Saini, AAG

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

13/07/2021

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayer:-

i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or directions to
quash and set-aside the order dated 30-08-2019
(Ann-11) issued by the respondents by which the
respondents rejected the representation of the
petitioner and denied him to allow to join the
duties on the post of IIIrd Grade Teacher –
English(L-2),(Non-TSP).

ii. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the
respondents be directed to give posting to the
petitioner on the post of IIIrd Grade Teacher-
English (L-2), (Non TSP) as per the appointment
order dated 28-03-2018 (Ann-4) at the
Government Higher Primary School, Dangarwada,

(Downloaded on 15/07/2021 at 09:44:20 PM)
(2 of 8) [CW-5607/2020]

Panchayat Samiti Khanmdar or any other suitable
place.

iii. Issue such appropriate writ order of directions
as may be deemed just and proper by this
Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of
the case.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for

appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III pursuant to the

advertisement issued by the respondents and participated in the

examination held by the respondents and being successful, his

name found place in the result declared by the respondents.

However, the respondents denied appointment to the petitioner on

the ground of pendency of criminal cases against him. The

petitioner earlier filed a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.7714/2018 wherein on 11.04.2018 the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court passed the following order :-

“Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner even after having declared
successful in the recruitment process for
appointment to the post of ‘Teacher Grade-III
Level-II’, vide order dated 28th March, 2018, is
not allowed joining on the pretext of pendnecy of
a criminal case.

It is further contended that the controversy
raised in the instant writ application is no more
res-integra in view of the law declared by the
Apex Court of the land in the case of Avtar Singh
Versus Union of India and others: 2016 (8) SCC
471, which has been referred to and relied upon
by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in somewhat
similar factual matrix in the case of Prayag Raj
Gocher Versus Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Limited and another: S.B. Civil Writ
Petition Number 2718 of 2016, decided on 21st
April, 2017, observing thus:

“In the light of the orders passed in the case
of Shobha Ram Meena (supra), wherein reliance
was placed upon the case of Kamal Singh Meena
Vs. Union of India Others, reported as 2016 (3)
W.L.C. (Raj.) 687 and in the case of Avtar Singh
Vs. Union of India and Others, (Special Leave
Petition No.20525/2011), reported as 2016 (8)

(Downloaded on 15/07/2021 at 09:44:20 PM)
(3 of 8) [CW-5607/2020]

SCC 471, the present petition is allowed and the
respondents are directed to reconsider the case of
the petitioner, in terms of the judgments of the
Court in the case of Kamal Singh Meena Vs. Union
of India Ors. (supra) and of the Apex Court
Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India Ors. (supra). In
the event, it is decided not to appoint the
petitioner a reasoned and speaking order shall be
passed by the respondents. However if the
petitioner is to be appointed, an appropriate order
in that regard shall also be passed. The entire
exercise be completed within a period of three
months from the date of presentation of a
certified copy of this order.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that for the present; the petitioner would be
satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to
consider and decide the representation of the
petitioner in view backdrop of the law declared by
the Apex Court of the land in the case of Avtar
Singh (supra), within a time frame, which he is
ready and willing to address within two weeks
hereinafter.

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the
instant writ proceedings are closed with a
direction to the petitioner to address a
comprehensive representation enclosing a copy of
the order in the case of Avtar Singh (supra).

In case, a representation is so addressed
within the aforesaid period, the State-
respondents are directed to consider and decide
the same by a reasoned and speaking order as
expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.
However, in no case later than four weeks from
the date of receipt of the representation along
with a certified copy of this order.

With the observations and directions, as
indicated above, the writ application stands
disposed off.

3. Pursuant to the above judgment passed by this Court, the

petitioner submitted a representation before the concerned

authorities for reconsideration of his case in the light of the

judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India Ors., reported in 2016(8) SCC

471. The said representation was duly considered and rejected by

the respondents vide order dated 30.08.2019.

(Downloaded on 15/07/2021 at 09:44:20 PM)

(4 of 8) [CW-5607/2020]

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that four criminal cases were

registered against the petitioner which are as under :-

Sr. Case No. Party’ name Offences Decision
No. date
1. Case No.12/2019 State of Rajasthan Under 19.11.2019
Vs. Rajesh Kumar Sections
@ Babli 341, 376,
455, 327,
323 201
of
IPC
2. Case No.09/2019 State of Rajasthan Under 16.12.2019
Vs. Rajesh Kumar Sections
@ Babli Anr. 307, 324,
341, 323,
34 452 of
IPC
3. Case No.298/2018 State of Rajasthan Under 02.03.2020
Vs. Sections
Rajesh Kumar @ 341, 323
Babli Ors. 34 of
IPC
4. Case No.142A/2019 State of Rajasthan Under 06.02.2020
Vs. Rajesh Kumar Sections
@ Babli 341, 323,
452 458
of IPC

5. Counsel further submits that in all the four above cases the

petitioner has been acquitted by the trial court giving him benefit

of doubt and once the petitioner has been acquitted in all the

criminal cases registered against him, the respondents are not

justified in denying appointment to the petitioner.

6. In support of the contentions, counsel for the petitioner

relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this

Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of State of

Rajasthan Ors. Vs. Dinesh Singh Bithu (D.B. Spp. Appl. Writ

No.20/2020) decided on 10.03.2021 wherein para No.11 it has

been held as under:-

“11. As laid down by the Supreme Court, acquittal
in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a
candidate for appointment to the post and the
employer has right to consider the antecedents of
the candidate and decide whether he is suitable for
(Downloaded on 15/07/2021 at 09:44:20 PM)
(5 of 8) [CW-5607/2020]

appointment to the post. There cannot be any
quarrel with the proposition that the acquittal or
discharge by itself cannot lead to presumption that
a person has been honourably acquitted/
completely exonerated. But, at the same time, if a
person is acquitted of the charges for want of
evidence, it would not necessarily lead to inference
that the acquittal of the person by the Criminal
Court of competent jurisdiction is not honourable.”

7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted

that as many as four criminal cases were registered against the

petitioner, one of which is of committing rape with a girl and

taking into consideration the antecedents of the petitioner as well

as serious offence committed by the petitioner under section 376

IPC, the respondent employer is having every right to deny

appointment to such persons like petitioner, as such the

respondents have not committed any illegality in denying

appointment to the petitioner.

8. In support of the contentions, counsel for the respondent

relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the matter of Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration

Ors. Vs. Pradeep Kumar Anr. reported in (2018) 1

Supreme Court Cases 797 wherein paras No.13 17 it has

been held as under:-

“13.It is thus well settled that acquittal
in a criminal case does not
automatically entitle him for
appointment to the post. Still it is open
to the employer to consider the
antecedents and examine whether he is
suitable for appointment to the post.
From the observations of this Court in
Mehar Singh and Parvez Khan cases, it
is clear that a candidate to be recruited
to the police service must be of
impeccable character and integrity. A
person having criminal antecedents will
not fit in this category. Even if he is

(Downloaded on 15/07/2021 at 09:44:20 PM)
(6 of 8) [CW-5607/2020]

acquitted or discharged, it cannot be
presumed that he was honourably
acquitted/completely exonerated.
The decision of the Screening Committee
must be taken as final unless it is shown to
be mala fide. The Screening Committee
also must be alive to the importance of the
trust repose in it and must examine the
candidate with utmost character.

17. In a catena of judgments, the
importance of integrity and high
standard of conduct in police force has
been emphasized. As held in Mehar
Singh case, the decision of the
Screening Committee must be taken as
final unless it is mala fide. In the case
in hand, there is nothing to suggest
that the decision of the Screening
Committee is mala fide. The decision of
the Screening Committee that the
Respondents are not suitable for being
appointed to the post of Constable does
not call for interference. The Tribunal
and the High Court, in our view, erred
in setting aside the decision of the
Screening Committee and the
impugned judgment is liable to be set
aside.”

9. Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The State of Rajasthan

Ors. Vs. Love Kush Meena reported in AIR 2021 SC 1610

where in paras No.1, 24 to 29, it has been held as under:-

“1. The moot point which arises for consideration
is whether a benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal
of the respondent in a case charged under
Sections 302,323,341/34 of the Indian Penal
Code [
IPC] can create an opportunity for the
respondent to join as a constable in the Rajasthan
Police service.

24. We may also notice this is a clear case
where the endeavour was to settle the dispute,
albeit not with the job in mind. This is obvious
from the recital in the judgment of the Trial Court
that the compoundable offences were first
compounded during trial but since the offence
under
Section 302/34 IPC could not be
compounded, the Trial Court continued and qua
those offences the witnesses turned hostile. We

(Downloaded on 15/07/2021 at 09:44:20 PM)
(7 of 8) [CW-5607/2020]

are of the view that this can hardly fall under the
category of a clean acquittal and the Judge was
thus right in using the terminology of benefit of
doubt in respect of such acquittal.

25. The judgment in Avtar Singh’s case
(supra) on the relevant parameter extracted
aforesaid clearly stipulates that where in respect
of a heinous or serious nature of crime the
acquittal is based on a benefit of reasonable
doubt, that cannot make the candidate eligible.

26. We may also note the submission of
learned counsel for the respondent that as per
para 38.3 in Avtar Singh’s case (supra), the
employer has to take into consideration the
Government orders/instructions/rules applicable
to the employee at the time of taking a decision.
It is her say that the issue whether the circular
dated 28.03.2017 would apply or not was res
integra in view of the earlier order of the learned
Judge dated 14.05.2018. She has further
contended that, in any case, the circular had
come into force and as per the judgment in Avtar
Singh’s case (supra) para 38.4, it is the date of
decision which is material and as on the date of
decision dated 23.05.2017, the said circular was
applicable.

27. We may note here that the circular
dated 28.03.2017 is undoubtedly very wide in its
application. It seeks to give the benefit to
candidates including those acquitted by the Court
by giving benefit of doubt. However, such circular
has to be read in the context of the judicial
pronouncements and when this Court has
repeatedly opined that giving benefit of doubt
would not entitle candidate for appointment,
despite the circular, the impugned decision of the
competent authority dated 23.05.2017 cannot be
said to suffer from infirmity as being in violation
of the circular when it is in conformity with the
law laid down by this Court.

28. We are, thus, of the view that the
impugned orders cannot be sustained and the
appellants are well within their rights to have
issued the order dated 23.05.2017.

29. The consequence is that the appeal is
allowed and the impugned judgment of the
Division Bench dated 16.07.2019 and learned
Single Judge dated 14.05.2018 are set aside
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”

10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(Downloaded on 15/07/2021 at 09:44:20 PM)

(8 of 8) [CW-5607/2020]

11. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be

dismissed for the reasons; firstly the respondents rightly rejected

the claim of the petitioner seeking appointment on the subject

post looking to his criminal antecedents as the petitioner was

involved in as many as four criminal cases and he was acquitted

by the trial court only giving him the benefit of doubt; secondly

the employer has every right to deny appointment to such a

person who is involved in a serious offence like Section 376 IPC as

has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration (supra); lastly in the

facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to

exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.

12. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed.

The judgments passed by the trial court dated 19.11.2019,

16.12.2019, 02.03.2020 06.02.2020 are taken on record.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

MG/46

(Downloaded on 15/07/2021 at 09:44:20 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation