Mr. Alok Sharma, J.

1. Is the obligation to do justice confined only to the Courts? It cannot and apparently is not and extends to all public functionarily. In the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana [(1985)4 SCC 417] the Apex Court observed that justice is not the function of the courts alone, it is also the duty of other state functionaries in every organ of the State who are expected to take decision on matters before them. However, as quite apparent from the facts of the case before this court, some officers of the welfare state, as the country avowedly is, are sadly innocent of their duty to be just in the discharge of their duties and oblivious to the observations of the Apex Court which have been adverted to in the fond hope of better dissemination of justice. They continue to be prone to mechanically dealing with matters which come up before them-pushing files only particularly when the matter before them relates to the less fortunate men and women without access to the levers of power.

2. The petitioner was selected as a driver of the Jaipur City Transport Services Limited (hereinafter 'JCTSL') after due process as reflected in the letter dated 04.09.2013. He has however been denied appointment on the ground that prior to his selection he was prosecuted for offences under Section 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134/187 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1988') in which on the matter coming up before the Magistrate's Court he admitted to his guilt for the offences charged in the spirit of Lok Adalat (as recorded by the trial judge) and fined Rs.2000/-.

3. It is not the case of the respondent-JCTSL that the petitioner was at any stage prior to his selection required to disclose previous involvement in a criminal case. Admittedly only when the petitioner was informed of his selection under the JCTSL's letter dated 04.09.2013 and called upon to submit details of any pending criminal case, if any, against him and also furnish a certificate of good character from the jurisdictional police station, he approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police Behror, Alwar (DSP) for the requisite certificate of good character. It was so issued on 13.09.2013 but it was also recorded therein that the petitioner had earlier suffered a trial in a criminal case no.519/2009 for offences under Section 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134/187 of the Act of 1988 in which he was visited a fine of Rs.2000/-. On the submission of the aforesaid certificate by the petitioner to JCTSL in compliance with its letter dated 04.09.2013, he has apparently been found unfit for appointment on the post of driver despite his selection and not appointed. Hence this petition.

4. Mr. Akhil Simlote counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no legal prohibition against the appointment of a person as a driver with the respondent-JCTSL for reason of his prior conviction for a minor offence of rash and negligent driving in which he came to be found guilty only on his admission in the spirit of Lok Adalat as recorded by the trial judge and paid a fine of Rs.2000/- there on. Mr. Akhil Simlote submitted that the instant case is also not one of suppression of fact of criminal prosecution as it was only for the first time after his selection vide JCTSL's letter dated 04.09.2013 that he was required to declare whether there was any pending criminal case against him. A certificate of good character by the jurisdictional police station was also required. Counsel submitted that the aforesaid the conditions were satisfied by the petitioner inasmuch as on 04.09.2013 there was admittedly no pending criminal case against him in view of the evident fact that vide order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bansur, Alwar the petitioner albeit convicted on his admission was let off with a fine of Rs.2000/-. Mr. Akhil Simlote then submitted that the certificate dated 13.09.2013