Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 537
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
M.N. Bhandari, J.
Tara Chand Meena – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan and ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 817 of 2016
Decided On : 08-03-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Nawal Singh Sikarwar, Advocate
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code , 1973 - Section 319 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Sections 4 & 12 – Advertisement - Post of Constable - Learned counsel for petitioner submits that an advertisement was issued by respondents to invite applications for various posts, which includes, post of Constable - Petitioner applied for post and remained successful in written examination - He was called for physical test and remained successful therein also - Petitioner was thereupon called for running test followed by select list where name of petitioner appear at item - In view of higher merit position of petitioner against 812 posts of Constable, he was sure to get appointment but was shocked on denial of appointment - Impugned order gives reasons for rejection of candidature - Petitioner has suppressed fact about pendency of criminal case and conviction therein – Held , Case of acquittal long before declaration made by candidate or is not a case of concealment - Benefit given only when accused is convicted, though conviction may not incur disability but denial of appointment is not due to conviction but due to suppression of criminal case - In light of aforesaid, judgments cited by learned counsel for petitioner cannot be applied - It is also necessary to refer judgment of Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Police - Therein, it has been held that appointment is disciplined forces can be denied even on acquittal in criminal case - It was also held that acquittal by itself would not make a candidate entitled for appointment in disciplined forces - In a case where a candidate has been convicted and has suppressed fact, it can be taken as a ground to deny appointment - Writ petition is dismissed
M.N. Bhandari, J.
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 27th August, 2013, by which, the petitioner has been denied appointment on the post of Constable (Driver). It was on account of suppression of fact about criminal case and conviction therein.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an advertisement was issued by the respondents on 14th July, 2013 to invite applications for the various posts, which includes, the post of Constable (Driver). The petitioner applied for the post and remained successful in the written examination. He was called for the physical test and remained successful therein also. The petitioner was thereupon called for the running test followed by the select list where name of the petitioner appear at item No. 6. In view of the higher merit position of the petitioner against 812 posts of the Constable (Driver), he was sure to get appointment but was shocked on denial of appointment. The impugned order dated 27th August, 2015 gives reasons for rejection of the candidature. The petitioner has suppressed the fact about pendency of the criminal case and conviction therein.
3. Learned counsel submits that petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case vide order dated 20th March, 2015 and against the said order, appeal was also dismissed. The FIR bearing No. 75/2011 was lodged on 07th April, 2011. The Prosecution conducted investigation and did not find petitioner's involvement therein, thus charge sheet against the petitioner was not filed. The cognizance of offence against the petitioner was taken on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The case was then tried against the petitioner and finally, he was given benefit of Section 4 & 12 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short 'Act of 1958'). In the background aforesaid, conviction of the petitioner should not have been taken adverse for denial of the appointment. The prayer is set aside the impugned order with a direction for appointment of the petitioner on the post of Constable (Driver).
4. The reference of various judgments has been given where suppression/concealment of the fact was ignored by the Court below and direction was given for appointment.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and scanned the matter carefully.
6. The documents available on record shows that petitioner remained successful in the selection test but has been denied appointment on suppressing/concealing of information about criminal case and conviction therein.
7. The question for my consideration is as to whether suppression/concealment about criminal case can be a ground to deny appointment.
8. The issue aforesaid has been considered by the Apex Court in number of cases. In the case of Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav reported in 2003(3) SCC 437 the question has been answered. The issue aforesaid was earlier answered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Bhaskaran reported in 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 100 and Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar reported in 1996(11) SCC 605. In those cases, denial of appointment on suppression/concealment about criminal case has not been interfered.
9. The same view was taken by the Apex Court in the case of Bank of Baroda v. Central Government Tribunal reported in 1999(2) SCC 427, R. Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police reported in 2008(1) SCC 660, Union of India and ors. v. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen reported in 2008(11) SCC 314 and also in the case of Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India and ors. reported in 2010(14) SCC 103 and lastly, in the case of State of West Bengal and ors. v. S.K. Nazrul Islam reported in 2011(10) SCC 184. In these cases, the Apex Court held that suppression of fact about criminal case is fatal, thus denial of appointment is justified. Those judgments are not only of disciplined forces but even other services like the services in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan.
10. In the instant case, the petitioner has suppressed t
