Candidates seeking employment in a disciplined police force are expected to carry high moral standards, and any deliberate misstatement or omission in furnishing vital information is viewed seriously.

JUDGMENT

Kuldeep Mathur, J. - The instant intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved of the order dated 11.02.2019 passed by learned Single Bench of this court whereby the writ petition was allowed directing the respondents (appellants herein) to accord appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable (General) if he is otherwise eligible in the questioned selection process ignoring the pendency of the criminal cases against him however with a condition in the appointment order that the petitioner's services will be terminated in the event of conviction.

2. The respondent-writ petitioner applied for the post of 'Constable (General) Non-TSP' in the category of 'outstanding sports person' pursuant to Advertisement dated 25.05.2018. The respondent-writ petitioner appeared for the written test and Physical Standard Test/Physical Efficiency Test (PST/PET). His name was reflected in the district-wise final selection list, though, no appointment order was issued to the respondent-writ petitioner. The respondent-writ petitioner preferred a writ petition being S.B.C.W. No. 17640/2018 before learned Single Bench of this Court stating inter alia that the respondent-writ petitioner had not indicated pendency of criminal cases against him in the application but had submitted information regarding the same subsequently through representation dated 22.10.2018. The learned Single Bench vide order dated 28.11.2018, disposed of the writ petition directing the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur to decide the fresh representation to be filed by the respondent-writ petitioner for the issues raised in the writ petition keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Anr. v. Dhaval Singh: AIR 1999 SC 2326 and the judgment of this Court in Mukesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan: 2016 (3) WLC 345 within a period of two weeks. The appellant-department in pursuance of order dated 28.11.2018, passed the order dated 06.12.2018 referring to circulars dated 15.07.2016 and 28.03.2017 of the department holding that the petitioner was not entitled to grant of appointment on account of pendency of criminal cases. The respondent-writ petitioner aggrieved by the above mentioned order, filed a writ petition being S.B.C.W. No. 19152/2018 before Single Bench of this Court. Learned Single Bench vide order dated 07.01.2019, directed the appellant-department to pass a fresh order since the order dated 06.12.2018 was not a speaking order. Thereupon, appellant-department passed the order dated 07.02.2019 reiterating its earlier position. The writ petition preferred against impugned orders denying the respondent-writ petitioner appointment on the post of 'Constable (General) Non-TSP' was allowed vide order dated 11.02.2019 with a direction upon the appellant-department to accord appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable (General) Non TSP if he is otherwise eligible in the questioned selection process ignoring the pendency of the criminal cases against him however with a condition in the appointment order that the petitioner's services would be terminated in the event of conviction and an undertaking in this respect shall be submitted by him.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-department, Shri Manish Vyas submitted that the order dated 07.02.2019 was passed after considering all the issues raised by respondent-writ petitioner in the representation submitted by him. It was further submitted that the information regarding pending criminal cases registered against respondent-writ petitioner was willfully withheld by him in the application form submitted on 29.05.2018. Counsel vehemently urged that the very act of concealing information that there were criminal cases pending against him raises serious questions regarding character of the candidate and therefore, order dated 11.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Bench deserves be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned co