The main legal point established is that pending criminal cases, especially those involving grave moral turpitude, can justify the denial of appointment to government service, in accordance with the guidelines from Avtar Singh (supra).

ORDER :

1. The appellant-writ petitioner has filed the instant intra-court appeal for assailing the judgment/final order dated 03.03.2022 passed by learned Single Bench dismissing the writ petition preferred by the petitioner against the rejection of his candidature for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade III.

2. The appellant applied for the said post pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 11.09.2017 issued for the post of Teacher Grade III (Level-II). He was provisionally selected by order dated 08.09.2021 and was accorded appointment by order dated 26.10.2021 issued by the Zila Parishad, Barmer and was provided posting at Government Upper Primary School, Darguda, Block Paykalan. A consequential appointment order was issued by the School on 28.10.2021. During the course of police verification, it came to light that the petitioner was being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act as a consequence of charge sheet filed after investigation of FIR No.74/15. Another trial for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 143, 323 and 341 IPC was reported to be pending against the petitioner. The Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti concerned, forwarded a communication dated 17.11.2021 to the Panchayat Primary Education Officer informing about the pending trials against the petitioner and indicating that he was ineligible for appointment. Consequently, the petitioner was not allowed to join on the post. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred the aforesaid writ petition which stands rejected as above by order dated 03.03.2022 which is assailed in this intra court appeal.

3. Learned counsel Dr. Nupur Bhati placed reliance on the following judgments:-

1. Khama Ram Vishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2000 (2) WCL (Raj.) 702

2. Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 471

3. State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs Love Kush Meena, (2021) 8 SCC 774

4. Commissioner of Police vs. Raj Kumar, AIR 2021 SC 4053

5. Union of India vs Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1

6. Anil Bhardwaj vs Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., AIR 2020 SC 4971

7. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & Ors. vs Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685

and urged that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be construed to be a valid ground so as to deny appointment to the petitioner who has been selected against the post by performing in merit. She urged that the respondents can at best impose a condition in the appointment order and the petitioner can be required to submit an undertaking that in the event of being convicted in any of the two criminal cases, referred to supra, he would face the consequence of automatic termination. Dr. Bhati heavily relied upon the observations made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and urged that the respondents acted in gross violation of the relevant service rules and the law as laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the afore-cited precedents. As per Dr. Bhati, the respondents authorities were absolutely unjustified in denying posting to the petitioner despite his rightful selection in the subject recruitment process. She also urged that the learned Single Bench failed to consider in correct perspective, ratio of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgments and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and a direction should be given to the respondents to offer appointment to the appellant on the post of Teacher Grade III.

4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by Dr. Bhati and have gone through the impugned order and the material placed on record.

5. Suffice it to say that the appellant-writ petitioner seeks appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III pursuant to the selection process initiated vide recruitment notification dated 11.09.2017. He was selected and his name was reflected in the merit list. An appointment order was also issued in his favour. During mandatory police verification, it came to light that he h