Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 211
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA, J
Bheemsen - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
CW / 9380 / 2021
Decided On : 17-03-2025
Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Mr. Sandeep Soni for Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG
Non-disclosure of a criminal case does not automatically disqualify a candidate; each case should be evaluated based on its specific circumstances and the candidate's overall suitability.
Headnote:
(A) Recruitment Rules - Rule 13(2) - Non-disclosure of criminal case - The rejection of the petitioner’s selection for Constable Driver based on the pendency of a criminal case was challenged. The petitioner was exonerated prior to the selection, yet the respondents cited non-disclosure of an FIR as grounds for disqualification. The court examined the implications of this non-disclosure in light of relevant case law. (Paras 1, 2, 6, 10, 12)
(B) Trust and Credibility - The court emphasized that while non-disclosure can lead to disqualification, it must be assessed in the context of trust and credibility of the candidate. The decision to disqualify must reflect an objective application of mind rather than a mechanical exercise. (Paras 8, 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner completed his education and applied for the Constable Driver post, ranking No.1 after qualifying all tests. Despite being exonerated from a criminal case, his selection was rejected due to non-disclosure of an FIR.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the rejection was a mechanical exercise lacking objective reasoning, and the petitioner should benefit from the Supreme Court's ruling in similar circumstances.
Issues: The main issues included whether non-disclosure of a past criminal case warranted disqualification and if the rejection was justified based on trust deficit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that non-disclosure must be viewed contextually, and mere mechanical disqualification without assessing the candidate's overall suitability is unjust.
Result: Petition allowed, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner.
Order :
1. Under challenge herein is an order dated 13.07.2021 (Annex.10), vide which, selection of the petitioner on the post of Constable Driver was rejected on the ground of pendency of criminal case against him.
2. The petitioner completed his senior secondary examination in 2012 and obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in 2015. He later acquired a driving license. On 04.12.2019, an advertisement for recruitment to the posts of Constable General and Constable Driver was issued by respondent No. 3, which included 12 posts of Constable Driver for the 8th Battalion, RAC(IR), Gazipur, Delhi.The petitioner, eligible for the Constable Driver post, applied under the OBC non-creamy layer category.
2.1. The petitioner appeared for the written examination on 06.11.2020 and qualified, securing high marks under the general category despite applying as an OBC candidate. He then appeared and qualified in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and Physical Standard Test (PST) on 10.04.2021.
2.2. On 17.04.2021, the petitioner was selected for the Constable Driver post, ranked No.1 under the general male category, and was called for document verification on 26.04.2021. During verification, the petitioner disclosed a criminal case registered against him, which he was exonerated from by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, on22.01.2021.
2.2. Despite submitting the exonerating judgment, the respondents canceled the petitioner’s selection vide an order dated 13.07.2021 (Annex.10), citing his involvement in the criminal case. The cancellation was based on the decision of the Superintendent of Police (Recruitment & Promotion) Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur, referencing a notification dated 02.03.2020. The petitioner’s candidature was deemed ineligible under sub-rule (2)of Rule 13, prompting to filing of this petition.
3. The relevant stance in the reply is that, while submitting the online application form for the post in question, the petitioner, in response to the column "Whether any FIR has ever been lodged against you," answered "No." However, during verification, it was discovered that FIR No. 475/2019 under Sections 323, 341, 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC was registered against him. Therefore, the petitioner intentionally concealed this fact and deliberately entered "No" in the column. Consequently, he is not entitled to any relief from this Court, and his petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and have gone through the case file.
5. No doubt at the time of filling up the online application for the post in question the petitioner did not disclose the factum of registration of an FIR against him. Reasons are not far to seek. He must have been in a dilemma that in case he discloses the same, there was high prospect of being disqualified at that very stage. He will not be allowed to participate in the selection process. Moreover, his dilemma seems to have arisen from his bonafide belief that he was falsely implicated in the FIR, as no role of any kind was attributed to him. He was not even a principal accused, though, of course, was arrayed as accused being part of assembly of people who were present at the scene of occurrence, which led to registration of FIR.
6. In somewhat similar circumstances, in the case of Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5902/2012), decided on 22nd February 2024, Supreme Court addressed an issue akin to what is herein, where a candidate who had explicitly stated in an affidavit that no criminal proceedings were pending against him. While dealing with this situation, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
“29. xxx xxx xxx
X. While examining whether the procedure adopted for enquiry by the authority was fair and reasonable, we find that the order of cancellation of 12.04.2005 does not even follow the mandate prescribed in Clause 4 of the Form of verification of character set out in the earlier part of this judgment. Li
