ORDER :

The appellant herein has approached this Court through this letter’s patent appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 read with Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 for assailing the order dated 27.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17449/2019 whereby, the writ petition of the appellant petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 18.10.2019 terminating the appellant petitioner from service, was affirmed.

2. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri Kuldeep Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Himanshu Choudhary, and have gone through the impugned order and record of the writ petition.

3. The appellant herein applied for selection as a Teacher Grade-III pursuant to the recruitment notification initiated by the District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur. He was selected and appointed on the above post vide appointment order dated 03.10.2017. Upon the petitioner having completed two years’ probation, his name was recommended for confirmation. However, a notice was issued to the petitioner by CEO, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur on 13.08.2019 with reference to four criminal cases having been lodged against him in Kota and Nagaur. The petitioner filed reply to the notice, stating therein that he had been given benefit of probation in two of the criminal cases whereas, in remaining, he had been acquitted. It was also mentioned that it was clearly stated in the police verification report, that the petitioner had been convicted in two criminal cases and as such, there was no concealment on part of the petitioner warranting his termination. The writ petition of the petitioner was however dismissed by the learned Single Bench of this Court keeping in view the ratio of Hon’ble the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2016 (8) SCC 471, observing that even an acquittal from criminal charges does not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment and the employer has a right to consider the antecedents of such candidate and decide whether he is suitable for appointment on the post concerned.

4. The learned Single Bench, took note of the fact that one criminal case wherein, the appellant petitioner, was convicted involved the charges under the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 in which, the appellant petitioner pleaded guilty and was convicted. As per the record, the other case in which, the petitioner was convicted involved the offence of theft.

5. In this background, the learned Single Bench observed that the character of the appellant petitioner disentitled him for appointment on the post of a teacher. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

6. Shri Kuldeep Mathur, learned Senior Advocate urged that the appellant petitioner had been granted benefit of probation and as such his service would be saved by virtue of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that both the criminal cases wherein, the appellant petitioner was convicted, involved offences of moral turpitude. As per circular dated 15.07.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, the character of the aspirant for Government Service is required to meet the following standards and a person who has been convicted for the offence involving moral turpitude is disentitled to be appointed in Government Service :-

“Character. The character of a candidate for direct recruitment to the service 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 or College 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 College or University and not related to him.

(1) A conviction by a court o