1. :- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable with all the consequential benefits.

2. Shri Dharamveer Tholia, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents advertised 69 posts of Constable in Dholpur District. Petitioner has also applied in response thereto. He appeared in interview test on 8.9.1996 and physical test which was conducted from 23rd to 26th October, 1996. Result of the selection test was declared on 26.10.1996. Petitioner was subjected to medical examination conducted on 7.11.1996 at Police Line, Dholpur and he was declared successful. In the verification that was conducted by the respondents, although the character of the petitioner was recorded as good but it was noted that a challan was filed against him in FIR No.221/1995 at Police Station Sirmathura for the offences under Section 147, 323 and 379 Indian Penal Code in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bari, in which case the petitioner was ultimately acquitted by order of that Court dated 15.11.1996. Certified copy of the order has been placed on record.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was not charged of any offence involving moral turpitude and in any case he was falsely implicated in the matter and so he was acquitted by the learned trial court, therefore, for this solitary reason, the petitioner could not be deprived of his right to appointment for which he was otherwise qualified.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents have in identical matters granted appointment on the post of Constable even when the applicants did not declare about their involvement in the criminal cases, but were subsequently acquitted. The petitioner has given the examples of Rameshwar Choudhary posted as Constable in 11th batallion of RAC, Omkar Singh against whom FIR No.453/1993 was registered in Police Station Bari for offence under Section 147, 148, 307 Indian Penal Code read with Section 149, 325, 325/149 and 323/149 Indian Penal Code and he did not disclose this fact in the verification roll at the time of applying, yet he was given appointment. This Omkar Singh had one more case registered against him in Police Station Bari for offence under Sections 323, 341, 342 Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in which challan was filed against him and the matter was pending trial at the time of submission of form. One Mukesh Kumar Rawat was also given appointment as Constable (Driver) despite pendency of the criminal case against him vide FIR No.59/1997 dated 17.3.1997 with Police Station Saipau for offence under Section 4/5 and 6 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992, which criminal case was pending against him at the time of filing of application. Similar was the case of Hakim Singh, Narendra Singh, and Ram Naresh Tyagi all of whom were given appointment when they had criminal cases pending against them at the time of submission of application form. Copies of their appointment orders and the copies of the judgement passed by the criminal court in the case of Omkar Singhi have been placed on record. Learned counsel has submitted that the Commandant, VIth Batallion, Dholpur issued an order on 10.1.2003, specially with respect to 4 such persons referred to above, which is on record. Superintendent of Police again issued an order on 20.2.2003 with respect to Narendra Singh and Ram Naresh Tyagi. Petitioner has placed on record letter dated 18.12.2002 written by Deputy Secretary to the Government in its department of Home to Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan Jaipur giving reference to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6076/1994, Sriram v. State & Ors. decided on 27.5.05, raising the same grievance. In that le