ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further be pleased to:

(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be directed to given appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable General with all consequential benefits.

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondent be directed to grant appointment letter and allow to petitioner to join the service on ground that the petitioner has been acquitted from the all charges levelled against him.

(iii) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the order dated 19.11.2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(iv) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents be directed not to cancel the appointment of the petitioner for the post of Constable General.

(v) Pass any other appropriate order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.

(vi) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement dated 25.05.2018 was issued by the respondents holding selection for the post of Constable, pursuant to which the petitioner applied and after participating in the selection process was found to be a successful candidate. However, the respondents denied appointment to the petitioner on the ground that criminal case was registered and pending against him at the time of selection process, therefore, he is not entitled for appointment on the post of constable.

3. Grievance of the petitioner by way of filing the present writ petition is that the petitioner has been discharged in criminal case vide order dated 10.07.2013 (Annexure-5) on the basis of the compromise, witnesses turned hostile and the offence alleged against him does not pertain to moral turpitude or violence against the State, therefore he is entitled for appointment.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have denied appointment to the petitioner even despite having been acquitted in the criminal case registered against him, therefore, he is entitled for appointment on the post of Constable in pursuance to the advertisement dated 25.05.2018.

5. Counsel for the respondents while opposing the writ petition submitted that after being successful in the selection process, during the verification found that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner, therefore, the respondents denied appointment to the petitioner. Counsel further submits that although the petitioner was acquitted by the learned trial court vide order dated 10.07.2013 (Annexure-5) in the alleged criminal case on the basis of compromise and witnesses turned hostile, but the acquittal was not an honorable acquittal and therefore the respondents vide order dated 19.11.2018 rightly rejected candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable.

6. Counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Love Kush Meena, (2021) 8 SCC 774 where in Paras-24, 25 and 28 it has been held as under:

“24. Examining the controversy in the present case in the conspectus of the aforesaid legal position, what is important to note is the fact that the view of this Court has depended on the nature of offence charged and the result of the same. The mere fact of an acquittal would not suffice but rather it would depend on whether it is a clean acquittal based on total absence of evidence or in the criminal jurisprudence requiring the case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, that parameter having not been met, benefit of doubt has been granted to the Accused. No doubt, in that