Mr. M.N. Bhandari, J.

1. None appears on behalf of the applicant to press the application for impleadment. Accordingly, it is dismissed for non-prosecution.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, this writ petition is heard finally.

3. It is a case where the petitioner applied for the post of Constable (Driver) in pursuance to the advertisement dated 14th July, 2013. After selection, the petitioner's name could find place in the merit list. He was, however, denied appointment as a criminal case was registered against him and charge sheet thereupon was filed on 11th December, 2014 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 354 and 324 IPC. The petitioner disclosed the fact about registration of criminal case and pendency thereupon. A challenge is made to denial of appointment to the petitioner despite his merit position.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that denial of appointment to the petitioner is in violation of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for short "the Rules of 1989"). Rule 13 of the Rules of 1989 permits appointment to even a convict and also to ex-prisoner subject to consideration of circumstances of the conviction. The petitioner has not been I convicted but a criminal case is pending and if he is finally acquitted in the; I criminal case, denial would affect his career for no reason whereas if the petitioner is convicted, the respondents can take a decision for discontinuance of his services. The denial of appointment is thus at premature stage and is otherwise affecting the right of appointment of the petitioner.

5. A reference of judgment of this Court has been given to show that in the similar circumstances mere pendency was not taken to be an obstruction for appointment.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition. It is submitted that pendency of criminal case is a ground to deny appointment. It is in light of the Memorandum dated 29th April, 1995 wherein after referring Rule 13 of the Rules of 1989, a direction has been given not to appoint a candidate against whom a criminal case is pending, however, he can be appointed if acquitted. In the light of the Memorandum, denial of appointment cannot be said to be illegal.

7. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

8. It is not in dispute that after selection, name of the petitioner could find place in merit list. The denial of appointment is precisely on the ground of pendency of criminal case.

9. The question for my consideration is as to whether pendency of criminal case can be taken as bar for appointment in the service.

10. A reference of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1989 has been given, which is quoted hereunder for ready reference:

"13. Character—The Character of a candidate for direct recruitment must be such as to qualify him for employment in the Service. He must produce a certificate of good character from the Principal Academic Officer of the University of College or School in which he was last educated and two such certificates, written not more than six months prior to the date of application, from two responsible persons not connected with the School or College or University and not related to him.

Note - (1) A Conviction by a Court of Law need not of itself involve the refusal of a certificate of good character. The circumstances of the conviction should be taken into account and if they involve no moral 2017 (1) WLC (Raj.) UC 339 Ravi Kumar v. The Director General of Police, Raj., Jaipur and Anr. turpitude or association with crimes of violence or with a movement, which has its objects to overthrow by violent means a Government as established by law, the mere conviction need not be regarded as disqualification.

(2) Ex-Prisoners, who by their disciplined life, while in prison and by either subsequent good conduct have proved to be completely reformed, should not be discriminated on grounds of the previo