Back
SANDEEP MEHTA
Mukesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Certainly. Here is a formal court order format based on the provided judgment, with references indicated as specified:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 186 of 2010
Mukesh Kumar
Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Respondents
ORDER
This Court has considered the submissions of the parties and the material on record (!) (!) .
It is observed that the petitioner participated in the selection process for appointment as Sub-Inspector and was found suitable (!) .
The order denying appointment due to the pendency of a criminal case has been challenged on the grounds that the offences involved do not constitute moral turpitude and that other similarly situated candidates have been appointed (!) .
The Court finds that the rules governing appointment do not explicitly prohibit employment solely based on pending criminal cases, provided the offences are not of moral turpitude (!) .
The Court notes that the petitioner disclosed the pendency of the criminal case, and there is no evidence to suggest that the offences involve moral turpitude (!) .
Accordingly, the Court holds that the petitioner’s right to appointment should not be denied on the basis of pending criminal proceedings alone, especially where other candidates with similar circumstances have been appointed (!) .
It is directed that the respondents shall offer appointment to the petitioner as Sub-Inspector, disregarding the pendency of the criminal case, with the condition that the appointment may be terminated if the petitioner is subsequently convicted (!) .
The petitioner shall submit an undertaking to this effect before joining the duties (!) .
The petitioner shall be granted all notional service benefits from the date of the original order of appointment, excluding any benefits during the period of employment as a teacher (!) .
No order as to costs.
This order shall be communicated to the concerned authorities for immediate compliance.
Issued on this [date].
[Signature of the Judge]
Please let me know if you require any modifications or additional sections.
Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition praying for the following relief:-
1. The order dt. 22.12.2009 (Annex.6) may very kindly be quashed and set aside with all its natural consequences; and
2. The respondents may very kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner in the matter of regular selection of S.I., keeping in mind the qualifications/experience he is holding;
2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner claims to be possessed of the requisite qualifications for being appointed appointed on the post of Sub Inspector. At the time of filing of the instant writ petition, he was working on the post of Teacher at the Government Secondary School, 90 RD (Khetawali) District Hanumangarh. A recruitment notification was published by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the year 2007 for filling up the vacancies in the cadre of Sub Inspectors in the Police Department. The petitioner applied for appointment in the recruitment process. He participated in the written and physical tests and was declared successful
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. There are no keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "disapproved," "criticized," or "distinguished" that would suggest a negative treatment or invalidation of these precedents. Therefore, based on the provided information, no case law appears to be identified as bad law.
[Followed/Supported]
The case "STATE OF M. P. VS ANSHUMAN SHUKLA - 2014 7 Supreme 92" discusses the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. This appears to be a straightforward interpretation of statutory provisions and does not indicate any negative treatment, suggesting it may be considered as supported or accepted law.
[Uncertain/Unclear Treatment]
The case "Prashant Maratha VS State Of Rajasthan - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 1448" references reliance on multiple judgments, including Mukesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, Mahendra Singh Rathore v. ... State of Rajasthan, and Ashu Kumar v. State of Rajasthan. The list does not specify how these cases have been treated in subsequent judgments. Without explicit language indicating whether these cases have been followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled, the treatment remains unclear.
The case "Delhi Administration VS Sushil Kumar - 1996 8 Supreme 47" discusses the criteria for testing candidate suitability based on character verification and criminal history. Again, there is no indication of how this case has been treated in later decisions, leaving its judicial treatment ambiguous.
All three cases in the list lack explicit information regarding their subsequent judicial treatment. Without additional context or citations to later case law, their status as good law, overruled, or otherwise treated cannot be confidently determined.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
