Acquittal in criminal cases does not guarantee employment; employers can consider a candidate's criminal history when making hiring decisions.

ORDER

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

i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or directions to quash and set-aside the order dated 30-08-2019 (Ann-11) issued by the respondents by which the respondents rejected the representation of the petitioner and denied him to allow to join the duties on the post of IIIrd Grade Teacher ?English (L-2)/ (Non-TSP).

ii. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents be directed to give posting to the petitioner on the post of IIIrd Grade Teacher-English (L-2), (Non TSP) as per the appointment order dated 28-03-2018 (Ann-4) at the Government Higher Primary School, Dangarwada, Panchayat Samiti Khanmdar or any other suitable place.

iii. Issue such appropriate writ order of directions as may be deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-Ill pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents and participated in the examination held by the respondents and being successful, his name found place in the result declared by the respondents. However, the respondents denied appointment to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of criminal cases against him. The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7714/2018 wherein on 11.04.2018 the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order :-

"Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner even after having declared successful in the recruitment process for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-Ill Level-II', vide order dated 28th March, 2018, is not allowed joining on the pretext of pendnecy of a criminal case.

It is further contended that the controversy raised in the instant writ application is no more res-integra in view of the law declared by the Apex Court of the land in the case of Avtar Singh Versus Union of India and others: 2016 (8) SCC 471, which has been referred to and relied upon by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in somewhat similar factual matrix in the case of Prayag Raj Gocher Versus Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another: S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 2718 of 2016, decided on 21st April, 2017, observing thus:

"In the light of the orders passed in the case of Shobha Ram Meena (supra), wherein reliance was placed upon the case of Kamal Singh Meena Vs. Union of India & Others, reported as 2016 (3) W.L.C. (Raj.) 687 and in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, (Special Leave Petition No.20525/2011), reported as 2016 (8)SCC 471, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner, in terms of the judgments of the Court in the case of Kamal Singh Meena Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) and of the Apex Court Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra). In the event, it is decided not to appoint the petitioner a reasoned and speaking order shall be passed by the respondents. However if the petitioner is to be appointed, an appropriate order in that regard shall also be passed. The entire exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the present; the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in view backdrop of the law declared by the Apex Court of the land in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), within a time frame, which he is ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation enclosing a copy of the order in the case of Avtar Singh (supra).

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the