An acquittal restores an individual's status as a law-abiding citizen, and denying employment based on past charges violates reintegration principles.

ORDER :

(ARUN MONGA, J.)

1. The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks the quashing of an order dated 23.11.2021 (Annex.-5), vide which he was deemed ineligible for appointment, and requests his appointment to the position of Constable in accordance with the advertisement dated 25.05.2018.

2. Brief facts first. A criminal case against the petitioner was resolved in his favor on 16.01.2018. Subsequent thereto, the respondents issued a notification/advertisement on 25.05.2018, inviting applications for various posts, including the position of Constable (General), for which the petitioner, being fully eligible, applied on 06.06.2018. After successfully clearing all stages of examination, he was selected and assigned to the Rajsamand district for appointment. Meanwhile, on 02.03.2020, a notification was issued outlining disqualification criteria, including cases resolved through compromise (Rajinama). As part of the appointment process, the petitioner was asked to undergo character certificate verification through the SHO of Bhim via a letter dated 15.06.2021, which he duly completed within the stipulated time. However, despite fulfilling all the necessary requirements, he received a. order/letter dated 23.11.2021, assailed herein, declaring him ineligible for appointment due to the prior resolution of a criminal case through compromise, even though the case had been settled in his favor years earlier. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the instant petition.

3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and perused the case file.

4. As regards the factual assertion of the respondents, the following pointed stand has been taken in para 2 & 6 of the reply, which are reproduced herein below :-

“2. That the averments contained in para No.2 of the writ petition are admitted to the extent they are in consonance with the advertisement dated 25.05.2018, An.1. However, thereafter a short amendment was also issued in regard to number of posts in District Rajsamand and in all 139 posts were advertised. The petitioner in pursuance of the said advertisement applied online but very strangely despite of having the full knowledge that a FIR is registered against him he did not mention about the same in the application for while mentioned the word ‘No’, which is apparent from the application of the petitioner. Thus a deliberate and intentional act of concealment / suppression was made by the petitioner which in itself disentitles him to get any relief from this Hon’ble Court.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

6. That though a suitable reply to the averments contained in para No.6 of the writ petition has already been submitted in paras No.3 and 4 of the reply hereinabove, but it is again reiterated at the cost of repetition that learned Trial Court acquitted the petitioner u/s 143, 324/149 while extending the benefit of doubt on account of absence of sufficient evidence, which legally speaking in no manner can be said to be an ‘honourable acquittal’ and further acquitted him for the offence u/s 341, 323/149 IPC in the light of the compromise entered into between the parties which also cannot be said to be ‘honourable acquittal’. However, the departmental committee after carefully examining the case of the petitioner and while placing reliance on Point No.02 of the notification dated 02.03.2020 did not find the petitioner eligible for appointment on the post of Constable, which is perfectly just, legal and in consonance with law and deserves to be maintained by this Hon’ble Court.”

5. The alleged concealment of non-disclosure of the criminal case seems to have weighed in the mind of the respondents while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. However, what they were unmindful of was the fact that as on the cut-off date of filling up the application form i.e. 14.06.2018, petitioner had already been exonerated by the trial Court and he stood acquitted, though, no doubt, due to a compromise.

6. A citizen, who is acquitted of the criminal trial, has all the right