Acquittal, regardless of being with benefit of doubt, does not disqualify candidates from employment; youthful indiscretions should not hinder future opportunities.

Order :

1. The petitioner herein, aspirant to become a Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander, inter alia, seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order and/or direction commanding the respondents to consider his candidature for the said post pursuant to advertisement dated 03.02.2021 and appoint him on the appropriate post, as per his merit, if found otherwise suitable. He pleads that he was successful in the selection process. After filing of the writ petition, a coordinate bench of this court, then seized of the matter, vide an interim order dated 20.09.2024 directed one post in question to be kept vacant. Said order since succinctly sums up the controversy to be adjudicated herein, is reproduced here in below :-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has disclosed the involvement of the petitioner in the criminal cases wherein, the orders of acquittal have been passed giving benefit of doubt. Learned counsel submits that the respondents have denied the appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal cases is not clean and the same is done after giving the benefit of doubt. He further submits that there are other candidates namely Vinod Kumar Sharma/Hanuman Sahay Sharma, Rajeshwari/Babu Lal, Kamal Kumar Meena/Rang Lal Meena, Dinesh Varhat/Amrit Lal Varhat & Vishal Parmar/Jeevanprakash Parmar in whose cases the appointments have been granted although they were acquitted in the criminal cases by giving benefit of doubt. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner’s case has been discriminated viz-a- viz the other persons mentioned above who have been given appointments by the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents prays for a short time to place on record the material which was taken into consideration by the Committee recommending the names of those persons as mentioned by the counsel for the petitioner.

4. Time prayed for is allowed.

5. List on 14.10.2024.

6. Meanwhile and till the next date of hearing, one post of Sub- Inspector (AP) which is being filled in pursuance of the advertisement dated 03.02.2021 and the corrigendum dated 07.06.2021 shall be kept vacant, if the same has not been completely filled up till date."

2. Despite being successful, due to past three FIRs against him, petitioner has not been given appointment letter. The FIRs were registered when he was a student (a juvenile). In the trials arising there from, he was subsequently acquitted in all by competent court, though by giving benefit of doubt.

3. The petitioner approached the competent authority by filing a representation dated 19.10.2023 (Annex.10). He apprised inter- alia that during his student life he was involved in three criminal cases, all registered at Police Station Ratanada, Jodhpur.

3.1. Out of the three, in first FIR No. 262/2012, the petitioner (15-16 years old then) and six others were charged under Sections 147, 149, 341, and 323 IPC. After trial, all accused were acquitted due to a lack of evidence qua Section 147 IPC and the remaining charges were settled through a compromise, leading to acquittal on 04.06.2013.

3.2. In second FIR No. 293/2013, the petitioner (16-17 years old then) and three others were charged under Sections 143, 341, 323, and 427 IPC. They were acquitted of Section 143 IPC on basis of doubt, while the other charges were settled vide compromise, resulting in acquittal on 01.09.2018.

3.3. In third FIR No. 168/2015, the petitioner (18-19 years old then) and four others faced charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 326, 324, and 307 IPC. However, the High Court quashed the entire case arising out of said FIR No.168/2015 on 17.01.2017.

3.4. Thereafter, not a single criminal act of any kind against him has ever been alleged or reported. Therefore, he pleaded that his candidature be considered, but to no avail.

3.5. Hence, this petition.

4. The stand taken by the respondents in their reply is that the case of the petitioner was considered by the