An acquitted individual cannot be denied employment based on past allegations, as it contravenes principles of justice and reintegration into society.

ORDER :

1. Grievance of the petitioner herein arises out of an order/communication dated 07.06.2024 (Annex.14), vide which, petitioner’s candidature on the post of Primary School Teacher (General/Special Education) (Level-I, Class I to V) pursuant to an advertisement dated 16.12.2022 (Annex.3), was rejected.

2. Succinctly speaking, relevant facts first.

2.1 Advertisement dated 16.12.2022 (Annex.3) was issued for the post of Primary School Teacher (General/Special Education) (Level-I, Class I to V). The petitioner applied for the post and cleared the written examination and his name finds place in the list of provisionally selected candidates. Thereafter, the petitioner was permitted to participate in the document verification. The respondents issued an order dated 31.07.2023 (Annex.7) containing the list of finally selected candidates in which name of petitioner finds mention at S.No.5339. Thereafter, the respondents issued a list of candidates for counseling in which the petitioner's name appears at S.No.295.

2.2 However, his appointment was withheld due to a pending criminal case under Sections 199, 200, 466, 467, 468, 471 and420 IPC.

2.3. After trial, the petitioner was acquitted of all charges, vide order dated 07.07.2023, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Jalore which was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore in appeal. The petitioner thereafter approached the respondents but vide impugned order/communication, dated 07.06.2024 (Annex.14), his candidature has been rejected. Hence this petition.

3. Stand taken by the respondents in their reply, inter alia, is that matter was examined by the competent committee constituted under directions issued by the Department of Personnel vide Circulars dated 04.12.2019 and 26.10.2021 in its meeting dated 27.02.2024 and candidature of the petitioner was rejected.

3.1 It is also submitted inter-alia that the Committee opined that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature. The post of teacher is very important as the teacher will construct the nation by giving moral education to the students.

3.2 It is further submitted in the reply that acquittal on the basis of compromise or by giving benefit of doubt cannot be treated as equivalent to honorable acquittal and looking to the FIR lodged against the petitioner the character of the petitioner is treated to be doubtful and as per settled legal proposition the employer is the best judge to examine the suitability of a candidate to be appointed as a Teacher. Therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed as it is devoid of merit.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard rival contention addressed on the lines of the respective pleadings of the parties and perused the case file.

5. In sum and substance, what boils down for adjudication lies in a very narrow compass i.e. whether the petitioner is dis-entitled to seek benefit of his performance in selection process, despite his acquittal in the criminal proceedings?

6. I am of the opinion that the offences under sections 199, 200, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC neither involve moral turpitude or nor can they be termed as heinous/serious in nature. None of the circulars dated 04.12.2019 and 26.10.2021 issued by the Department of Personnel, State Government referred to and relied upon by the respondents in their written reply have been produced on record.

6.1 Be that as it may, even otherwise, the petitioner has been acquitted of all charges by a competent court of law. Trite it may sound, but on the principle of presumption of innocence, an acquittal restores the petitioner's status as a law-abiding citizen. The respondents' stand that the acquittal was not "honorable" is merely speculative. The acquittal remains valid unless set aside in appeal. No such appeal against acquittal was filed by the State. Denying the petitioner an appointment solely due to an FIR/trial, in which he has been acquitted by the competent Court, amounts to