Point of Law: Section 12 which contains a non-obstante clause obliterates or expunges the disqualification attached to or emanating from a conviction.

ORDER :

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 25.01.2021, passed by the respondent No. 3 cancelling petitioner’s candidature.

2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner vied for the post of Junior Assistant pursuant to recruitment notification dated 16.04.2018. The petitioner being meritorious, was issued an order of appointment dated 14.07.2020.

3. After issuance of appointment order, petitioner’s police verification was got conducted in which it had transpired that the petitioner being involved in a criminal case had been convicted. The Principal Seth Manohar Singh Mehta, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Sanganer, Bhilwara by his letter dated 15.07.2020 sought a clarification from the District Education Officer, as to whether the petitioner should be allowed to join.

4. It is noteworthy that regardless of the fact that the said letter dated 15.07.2020 made a clear reference of the order/judgment dated 10.01.2020, passed by the High Court and benefit of probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1958”) having been given thereby, the respondent No. 2 vide communication dated 15.01.2021 recommended that the petitioner be not taken in services.

5. In furtherance of the recommendation so made, the District Education Officer (respondent No. 3) passed the impugned order (dated 25.01.2021) and cancelled/revoked petitioner’s appointment/selection.

6. The petitioner present in person submitted that by way of the order dated 10.01.2020, passed in an appeal filed by the petitioner being S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 455/2005 Amit Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan, the High Court has given benefit of probation to the petitioner under section 4 of the Act of 1958. While inviting Court’s attention towards Para No. 13 of the judgment aforesaid, he highlighted that the Court had acquitted the petitioner of the charges under sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code. In relation to his conviction for the offences under sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act, he submitted that though the same has been maintained but the benefit of provision of section 4 of the act of 1958 has been given and hence, the disqualification (if any) on account of his conviction has gone. He argued that the respondents’ action of rejecting his candidature is illegal and liable to be quashed.

7. The Court’s attention was drawn towards the communication dated 15.07.2020 to flag that the school where the petitioner was appointed has forwarded not only the copy of the order dated 10.01.2020 but had also highlighted that the petitioner has been given the benefit of section 4 of the Act of 1958.

8. The petitioner argued that in spite of the relevant facts being available with the respondents, they have taken a view completely contrary to the mandate of section 4 of the Act of 1958.

9. Petitioner submitted that in identical circumstances, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Khyali Lal Regar vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5989/2022 vide order dated 28.04.2022, allowed the writ petition and quashed the rejection of petitioner’s candidature.

10. Mr. Sarwan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that petitioner’s acquittal is not honourable, hence, the order passed by this Court on 10.01.2020 in petitioner’s appeal does not help the petitioner’s cause. He was, however, not in a position to distinguish the facts of the present case from the facts involved in the case of Khyali Lal Regar (supra).

11. Heard the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-State and perused the material available on record.

12. Before adverting to the rival contentions, this Court would like to observe that the respondents have cancelled/revoked petitioner’s appointment without following the basic canon of law,- opportunity of hearing being the first principle of natural justice. It is surprising to note that before snat