2001 Supreme(Raj) 96
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Honble DR. AR. LAKSHMNAN, CJ. & ASHOK PARIHAR, J.
Madan Lal Jat - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr. - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2589 of 1998
Decided On : January 30, 2001
Advocates Appeared:
B.L. Sharma with Miss Raj Sharma, for Petitioner Ajay Purohit G.A. & Virendra Lodha, for Respondents
Headnote:(a) Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, Rule 13 & 15 – Selection to the post of constable – Not disclosed the correct fact in the application form in the column provided for it of his being involved as an accused – On verification found involved in criminal case u/Sec. 447 and 427 IPC – Challan was filed in the Court – Decided on the ground of compromise – Denied appointment – Held – Appointment could be denied on the ground of suppression of material facts u/Rule 13 and 15 of the Rules – Not entitled to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226. (Para 22)(b) Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, Rule 13 & 15 and Constitution of India, Art. 226 – Denial of appointment to the post of constable on the ground of suppression of material fact–Filed writ petition – Honble Single Judge referred the Full Bench decision in the case of Dharampal Singh (2000(2) RLW 815) to the Larger Bench – Held – Learned Single Judge is not competent to make reference of the Full Bench decision of this Court to the larger Bench – He is bound by the judgment of the Full Bench in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Coir Boards Case (2001(1) SCC 224) – The reference can be made to a larger Bench only by a Bench consisting of the same number of Judges who delivered the judgment. (Para 12 & 13)
HELD : We have perused the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Dharampal Singhs case (supra) and we are bound by the opinion offered by the Full Bench. In our opinion, it does not require any reconsideration on a reference being made by a learned Single Judge of this Court who is bound by the judgment of the Ful Bench as already held by the Supreme Court in Coir Boards Case (supra). The reference can be made to a larger Bench for examining the correctness of the Judgment only by a Bench consisting of the same number of Judges who have delivered the judgment, the correctness of which is doubted. Thus, reference by the learned Single Judge regarding correctness of the judgment of the Full Bench itself is doubtful. Therefore, we directed the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents to address their arguments on the merits of their cases. (Para 13)
Honble LAKSHMANAN, CJ.–This writ petition was filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Constable (R.A.C.) along with all consequential benefits. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to an advertisement published in the newspaper for filling up certain posts of Constables, the petitioner applied for the said post. A permission letter was issued to him for appearing in the written examination. The petitioner was declared successful and the result of the written examination was published in the daily Rajasthan Patrika in its Udaipur edition dated 15.9.1996. The petitioner, thereupon appeared in the Physical Efficiency Test and Viva-voce/interview on 2.11.1996 before the fourth respondents. A list of 17 provisionally selected candidates including the petitioner was published by the fourth respondents on 2.11.1996 on the notice board that the name of the petitioner was shown at No. 1 in the said selected list. The Commandant of XIIth Bn. (R.A.C.) sent a letter to the police station Kapasan for character verification of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, a compromise took place between the parties in the aforesaid criminal cases and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges in those cases vide order dated 19.11.1996 (Annexures 4 to 6). It is the case of the petitioner that on 19.11.1996 itself, the petitioner submitted an application to the Station House Officer, Police Station Kapasan along with certified copies of the order dated 19.11.1996 passed in the criminal cases and requested for his character verification. The police station sent a report to the Superintendent of Police Chittorgarh on 19.11.1996 mentioning therein the three cases are pending against the petitioner vide FIR No. 394/1995, 331/1996 and 321/1996 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan u/S. 447 and 427 IPC. In his turn, the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh vide his letter dated 22.11.1996 informed the fourth respondent regarding pendency of the above cases against the petitioner. Since, the petitioner did not receive any appointment letter for the post of Constable in pursuance of his selection dated 2.11.1996, the petitioner contacted the respondents on various occasions and thereupon he sent a notice of demand for justice (Annex. 8) to the respondents Nos. 2 to 4. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner filed some documents vide Annex. 1 to 8. Inspite of the notice of demand for justice, the respondents did not pay any head to the notice, therefore, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition with a prayer to direct the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner on the post of Constable (RAC) along with other consequential benefits.
(2). It is the case of the petitioner that Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to `the Rules of 1989) provides that persons getting appointments in the service should not be of a bad character or convicted by a competent court of law in the criminal case involved moral turpitude. According to the petitioner, pendency of the criminal cases against him does not involve moral turpitude and should not be a ground to deny appointment.
(3). A reply was filed by the respondents. According to the respondents, the petitioner while submitting his application form has concealed the fact that certain criminal cases were pending against him in the Police Station Kapasan vide FIR Nos. 394/1995, 321/1996 and 331/1996 and had these facts been put in the application form, the respondents would not have called the petitioner for purpose of appearing in the written examination. It is also submitted in the reply that the conduct of the petitioner in also in contravention to Rule 15 of the Rules of 1989, which runs as under:-
``15. Employment of Irregular or Improper Means:-
A candidate who is or has been declared by the Recruitment Boa
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
