A candidate's truthful disclosure of a pending criminal case does not justify denial of appointment if there is no evidence of concealment or misrepresentation.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner herein is before this Court seeking directions to the respondents to conduct his document verification and grant him appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II, pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.12.2022.

2. Briefly speaking, relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are that the Rajasthan Karamchari Chayan Board, Jaipur, issued an advertisement on 16.12.2022 inviting applications for the post of Teacher Grade-3 Level-2 (Class 6-8) in Hindi for the Non-TSP Area. The petitioner, being eligible, applied for the said position.

2.1. In response to the advertisement, the Director of Elementary Education, Bikaner, issued the final list of selected candidates on 05.10.2023. The petitioner’s name appeared at serial number 5 in the list with a merit score of 371. During the document verification, candidates were asked to fill out a self-declaration form, including information about any pending criminal cases. The petitioner disclosed that an FIR (No. 30/2020) had been filed against him on 30.01.2020, but no charge sheet had been filed yet.

2.2. The FIR against the petitioner stemmed from an incident on 29.01.2020 during the Panchayat election at Panchayat Bhawan, Nitoda. The petitioner’s mother, Sunder Devi, was a candidate, and during the counting, a group, including a losing candidate, engaged in stone-pelting. The petitioner went to the scene to help his mother but was detained by the police, despite being innocent.His name was wrongly included in the FIR.

2.3. The case remains under investigation, even after four years. The petitioner has submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, on 18.01.2024, requesting a fair investigation, but no action has been taken despite multiple meetings with the Investigating Officer and Superintendent of Police.

2.4. After the district allotment, the list was sent to the District Education Officers. The petitioner, who is from Sirohi, was recommended to the DEO Sirohi, along with three other candidates. However, the petitioner’s counseling was not conducted, as it was noted that, according to a departmental circular (P.1(1) Karmik/K-2/2016), any candidate with a pending criminal case would be ineligible. Hence, the present petition.

3. Defense taken in the reply is that candidature of each and every applicant is verified following the prescribed procedure. Case in hand relates to offences under Sections 143, 332, 353, 308 & 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Same were mentioned in the verification certificate issued by the police station concerned. Therefore, the candidature of the petitioner was rightly not considered in view thereof. The present writ petition thus deserves to be dismissed.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the case record.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that, despite being selected and having his documents verified, he was denied joining due to the ongoing criminal case, and that his disqualification was unjustified.

6. First and foremost, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner indulged in any concealment and/or misrepresentation at the time of filing his application for the post in question pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.12.2022. In fact, there was no occasion on the part of the petitioner to indulge in any concealment and/or misrepresentation, overtly or covertly, at the time of applying and / or during document verification.

7. The controversy raised that requires adjudication herein was also subject matter of another writ petition which was decided by me vide an order / judgment dated 30.01.2024 bearing SBCWP No. 18747/2019 (Patram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) The observat