Back
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
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)
(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
