ORDER

1. This Petition Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 16.3.2023 passed by Commandant, 23rd Battalion SAF, Bhopal in file No.23rd Battalion/SAF/Estt./P.741-A/2023 by which candidature of petitioner for the post of Constable has been rejected.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of present petition in short are that an advertisement was issued in the year 2017 for recruitment to the post of Constable in 23rd Battalion SAF, Bhopal. Petitioner appeared in said examination and was declared successful and accordingly, petitioner was allocated to 23rd Battalion SAF. In Character Verification Form, petitioner had specifically pointed out criminal cases, which were registered against him i.e. Criminal Case No.1368/2011 and Criminal Case No.713/2013 for offence under sections 294, 452, 323, 325/34, 427, 506 Part-II of IPC, which was pending in the Court of JMFC Harda. Thereafter, by order dated 29.11.2018, petitioner was declared disqualified from Police Services. Accordingly, petitioner preferred W.P. No.2651/2019 before this Court and after considering submissions made by counsel for the parties, this Court passed an order dated 22.9.2022 thereby directing respondents to decide representation. In compliance of order passed by this Court, petitioner submitted a detailed representation. However, by impugned order dated 16.3.2023, representation has been rejected and as consequence thereof, candidature of petitioner for the post of Constable in SAF has been rejected.

3. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that apex Court in the case of Pramod Singh Kirar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. decided on 2.12.2022 in Civil Appeal No.8934-8935/2022 has held that since settlement had taken place between the parties, which resulted in acquittal of candidate, therefore, he cannot be denied appointment only on the ground that earlier he was prosecuted for offence under section 498-A of IPC. It is further submitted that once petitioner has been acquitted, therefore, there cannot be any hurdle in appointment of petitioner specifically when there is a scarcity of government jobs. Merely because petitioner was prosecuted in two different criminal cases, same may not be hurdle for denying a government Job.

4. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for State. It is submitted that Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 has also held that the employer can consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. It is submitted that for appointment in police force, a person of an impeccable character and utmost honesty is required. Two criminal cases were registered against petitioner and both the criminal cases resulted in acquittal only on the ground that in both criminal cases, complainant had decided to enter into a compromise. Therefore, it is clear that acquittal of petitioner was not honourable.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. The moot question for consideration is that whether acquittal of petitioner on the basis of compromise can be said to be an honourable acquittal or not?

7. The case in hand is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others v. Love Kush Meena reported in (2021) 8 SCC 774, wherein it has been held as under :--

“24. Examining the controversy in the present case in the conspectus of the aforesaid legal position, what is important to note is the fact that the view of this Court has depended on the nature of offence charged and the result of the same. The mere fact of an acquittal would not suffice but rather it would depend on whether it is a clean acquittal based on total absence of evidence or in the criminal jurisprudence requiring the case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, that parameter having not been met, benefit of doubt has been granted to the accused. No doubt, in that facts of the present case, the person who ra