Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 173
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANGEET LODHA, PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, JJ.
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Suresh - Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1411 of 2019
Decided On : 28-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sandeep Shah, Addl. Advocate General
For the Respondent: O.P. Sangwa
Candidates who mentioned criminal cases and were acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt were entitled to appointment, as per the circular issued by the appellants.
Headnote:
CONSTABLE RECRUITMENT - CRIMINAL CASE - ACQUITTAL - APPOINTMENT - CIRCULAR - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY - [SECTION 28.03.2017 CIRCULAR]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the single judge's order directing the appointment of the respondent as a constable despite a criminal case registered against him. The respondent had mentioned the case in the verification form, and the circular issued by the appellants stated that candidates who mentioned criminal cases and were acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt were entitled to appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the circular required the respondent to mention the case details either in the application form or verification form, which he did. The circular clearly stipulated giving appointments to candidates acquitted on account of benefit of doubt. The court found no interference was called for in the impugned order.
Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to be appointed as a constable despite a criminal case registered against him, considering the circular issued by the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on two Division Bench judgments of the same court, which held that candidates who mentioned criminal cases and were acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt were entitled to appointment, as per the circular issued by the appellants.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications were also dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
1. There is delay of 136 days in filing the present appeal. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed which, for the reasons mentioned therein, is allowed. Delay in filing this appeal is thus condoned.
2. This special appeal has been preferred by the State/appellants claiming the following relief:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this special appeal may kindly be allowed and the record of the case may kindly be called for and examined and the impugned orders passed by learned Single Judge dated 22.04.2019, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner may kindly be dismissed."
3. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Rakesh Singh (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1421/2019, decided on 10.01.2020), which reads as under:-
"The present controversy arises out of the recruitment process for the post of Constable (General), Non-TSP area in pursuance of the advertisement dated 25.05.2018. The petitioner (respondent herein) secured merit position in the final merit-list but was not accorded appointment on the ground that a criminal case was registered against him and the information for the same had not been furnished by him in the initial application form.
Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Manish Vyas submits as per Annex. 5 of the writ petition, which is application form, there was a condition that the candidate was required to answer a question "whether any FIR has ever been lodged against him", to which the respondent-petitioner had stated "No", which is gross violation and amounts to suppression of fact and as such he cannot be permitted to be appointed in the disciplined force of Police Department.
The Additional Advocate General, Mr. Vyas has also vehemently submitted that acquittal was due to giving him benefit of doubt and was not absolute acquittal and thus also rejection of the candidature of the respondent despite coming in merit was justified.
Mr. G.R. Bhari, learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is an admitted position that the circular dated 28.03.2017 issued by the appellants clearly states that a person who has mentioned the details of the criminal case either in the application form or in the verification form, shall be entitled to be given appointment even when he has been acquitted on the ground of proposition of benefit of doubt. Relevant portion of the circular reads as follows:
^^dk;kZy; egkfuns'kd iqfyl jktLFkku] t;iqj
Øekad% uaŒ&5¼01½ iqŒQksŒ@dkfuŒHkrhZ@vkŒÁŒ ikfylh@2017@1300
fnukad% 28-03-2017
ifji=
fo"k;% vkijkf/kd Ádj.kksa esa fyIr@vkijkf/kd Ádj.kksa ds rF; Nqikus ds dkj.k fu;qfDr ls oafpr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds lEcU/k esaA
---------------------
---------------------
fuEukafdr Js.kh ds dsoy mu vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fu;qDr ;ksX; ik;k x;k gS] ftUgksaus vkosnu i= vFkok pfj= lR;kiu QkeZ ¼nksuksa esa vFkok fdlh ,d esa½ vkijkf/kd Ádj.k dk mYys[k fd;k gks %&
1- vkijkf/kd Ádj.k ds vUos"k.k esa nks"kh ugha ik;k x;k] ,QŒvkjŒ Lohd`r dh xbZA
2- U;k;ky; }kjk nks"keqDr ¼lansg dk ykHk] lk{; ds vHkko lfgr½A
3- jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij nks"keqDr@cjhA
4- dfri; /kkjkvksa esa nks"kflf) ij ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12 dk ykHk ¼nks"kflf) fdlh fugZjrk ls xzLr ugha@jktdh; lsok@Hkkoh thou ij fdlh Ádkj dk foijhr ÁHkko ugha½A
5- nks"kh djkj fn;k tkdj fd'kksj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 15¼1½¼,½ dk ykHk ÁkIrA**
Mr. Bhari, learned counsel for the respondent further submits that since the circular dated 28.03.2017 is a comprehensive policy document issued by the appellants, they themselves are bound by the same and the respondent had clearly mentioned about the criminal case in verification form and thus he was entitled for appointment as per his merit in accordance with law.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court notes that the circular dated 28.03.2017 required the responde
