The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clean and honorable acquittal and the absence of moral turpitude for appointment in disciplined security forces, as emphasized by the Supreme Court.

ORDER :

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

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the interest of justice, Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and;-

(I) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 31.12.2020 (Annex-1) passed by Superintendent of Police, District Jhalawar, may kindly be quash and set aside;

(II) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the non-petitioner may be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable (Driver) with all consequential benefits relates back to the date when first appointment was made pursuant to the Advertisement.

(III) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner.

(IV) Cost of this Writ petition may also kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 14.07.2013, the petitioner applied for the post of Constable. During the Physical Efficiency Test/ Character Verification, the petitioner himself submits that one criminal case No.112/2013 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 354 and 324 of IPC was under trial against the petitioner and nothing was suppressed from the employer. Thereafter, the petitioner was acquitted in the aforesaid offences by giving benefit of doubt and the compromise by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 13.03.2020. However, the petitioner has been denied appointment by the respondents vide order dated 31.12.2020 treating his acquittal being not a clean acquittal, which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt and the compromise by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 13.03.2020 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for appointment on the post of Constable in pursuance to the advertisement dated 14.07.2013.

4. Counsel for the respondents submitted that during the Physical Efficiency Test/Character Verification, it found that a criminal case No.112/2013 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 354 and 324 of IPC was registered against the petitioner in which though the learned Trial Court acquitted the petitioner on the ground of benefit of doubt and the compromise but the same is not a clean acquittal. Counsel further submits that it is for the Selection Committee to adjudge the suitability of the candidate, more particularly, for appointment in the Disciplined Security Forces and looking to the conduct of the petitioner, he is not entitled for appointment in the Disciplined Security Forces.

5. Counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Love Kush Meena, reported in (2021) 8 SCC 774 where in paras-24, 25 & 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 facts of the present case, the person who ran the tractor over the deceased lady was one of the other co-Accused but the role assigned to the others including the Respondent herein was not of a mere bystander or being present at site. The attack with knives was alleged against all the other co-Accused including the Respondent.

25. We may also notice this