JUDGMENT :

SANGEET LODHA, J.

This intra-Court appeal is directed against order dated 22.4.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent, challenging the action of the appellants herein in rejecting his candidature for appointment to the post of Constable, has been allowed.

2. The appeal is reported to be barred by limitation for 122 days. It is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

3. The application seeking condonation of delay is not opposed by the counsel appearing for the respondent. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. The facts relevant are that Director General of Police, Rajasthan issued an advertisement dated 25.05.2018 inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of Constable in different categories. The respondent applied for appointment on the post of Constable (General). Having cleared the written examination, the respondent was called for Physical Suitability Test/Physical Efficiency Test (PST/PET). Though, selected, the respondent was denied appointment inasmuch as, he was involved in a criminal case wherein he was acquitted but his acquittal was not considered honourable acquittal.

5. Challenging the action of the appellants in rejecting his candidature, the respondent preferred a writ petition before this Court, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge following a coordinate Bench decision of this Court in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 19166/18 : Kuldeep Bhakar v. State of Rajasthan and accordingly, the appellants have been directed to accord appointment to the respondent pursuant to the selection, if otherwise eligible. Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned AAG appearing for the State contended that the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in allowing the writ petition in light of Kuldeep Bhakar's case (supra). Learned AAG submitted that the respondent was acquitted in the criminal case for offences punishable under Sections 323, 336, 427, 452/34 IPC by the trial Court giving benefit of doubt due to lack of evidence and thus, he was not entitled for appointment. Learned AAG submitted that learned Single Judge has not considered the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India : (2016) 8 SCC 471. That apart, the circular dated 28.03.2017 issued by the State Government issuing guidelines regarding appointment of the candidates involved in criminal cases, has also not been examined by the learned Single Judge. Drawing the attention of the Court to the decision of the Apex Court in Avtar Singh's case (supra), learned AAG submitted that in a case involving moral turpitude if on technical ground giving benefit of doubt, an accused is acquitted of the charges, the employer has right to deny the appointment taking into consideration the antecedent of the candidate and other facts available. Learned AAG submitted that in the first instance, in the application form, provided for giving details about the FIR being lodged, the respondent has specifically mentioned ‘No’ and thus, the factum of involvement in criminal case was concealed, however, in the verification roll, the respondent had disclosed that he was an accused in a criminal case but he was acquitted. Learned AAG submitted that admittedly, the respondent was an accused in a criminal case involving moral turpitude wherein he has not been honourably acquitted and thus, the denial of appointment to him cannot be faulted with. Relying upon decision of the Supreme Court in Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration v. Pradeep Kumar : (2018) 1 SCC 797, learned AAG submitted that acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of the suitability of the candidates in the post and on that account, he does not automatically become entitled for appointment to the post. Learned AAG submitted that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be of impeccable character and integrity. Learned AAG