IMPORTANT POINT
An acquittal in criminal proceedings restores the status of a law-abiding citizen, and denying employment based on an FIR where the individual has been acquitted is unjust.

ORDER :

(Arun Monga, J.)

1. Petitioner herein is before this Court seeking appointment on the post of Constable Driver pursuant to an advertisement dated 25.05.2018 (Annex.3).

2. Succinctly speaking, relevant facts, as pleaded in the petition are as follows:

2.1 An advertisement dated 25.05.2018 (Annex.3) was issued by the respondent No.2 for the post of Constable in pursuance of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (as amended) in Part-III for the Rajasthan Police in various Districts / Units / Battalions for Constable General, Constable Driver, Constable Band, Constable Horse Rider, Constable Swan Dal, and Constable Operator, for a total of 13142 vacant posts. The last date for submitting the online application form was 14.06.2018.

2.2 Pursuant to this, the petitioner, being eligible, applied for the post of Constable Driver and filled in all the required information. In the relevant application form, the petitioner had disclosed, inter alia, that an FIR No. 205 dated 07.07.2007 under sections 323, 341, 447, and 504 IPC, which had been lodged against him at Police Station Bhadra. Thereafter, the respondent department issued an Admit Card to the petitioner for appearing in the written examination. The petitioner successfully cleared the written exam and was called for the physical efficiency test, which was to be conducted on 15.09.2018. Subsequently, the final result was issued by the respondent department, in which the petitioner’s name appeared at S.No. 21 along with his roll number.

2.3 The petitioner later came to know that appointment letters were issued to other candidates; however, the same was not issued to him. He immediately sent a detailed letter / representation dated 17.12.2018 to the concerned respondent authority requesting the issuance of an appointment letter, but to date, the appointment / joining has not been provided to the petitioner.

2.4 The petitioner was later informed orally by the Police Headquarters in Jaipur that the appointment letter had not been issued to him due to the pendency of FIR No. 205 dated 07.07.2007 under sections 323, 341, 447, and 504 IPC, which was lodged at Police Station Bhadra.

2.5 Thereafter, the petitioner again submitted a detailed representation dated 11.01.2019, stating that in the aforesaid case, the petitioner had been exculpated as the matter had been compromised between the parties, and the proceedings had been dropped against him by the learned trial court vide its order dated 27.06.2018. However, to date, no action has been taken by the respondents on the said representation. Hence, this petition.

3. Stand taken by the respondents in their reply inter alia is that instant matter was examined by the respondents in light of the circular No.1300 dated 28.03.2017, issued by the Department of Home dated 14.08.2013 and Circular dated 15.07.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel, State Government. That it is not a case of clean acquittal. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner, wherein, the petitioner has been acquitted on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties, which clearly shows that the petitioner has not been cleanly acquitted, but he has been acquitted on technical grounds, therefore, he has not been considered suitable for the appointment as per rules and accordingly he has not been issued appointment letter. Therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed as it is devoid of merit.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the case file. Rival arguments have been addressed on the lines of the respective pleadings of the parties.

5. In sum and substance, what boils down for adjudication lies in a very narrow compass i.e. whether the petitioner is dis-entitled to seek benefit of his performance despite his acquittal in the criminal proceedings owing to which his candidature was withheld?

6. The offences under sections 323, 341,