Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 3656
[2024:RJ-JD:37401]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3183/2021 Rakesh Bishnoi S/o Shri Pat Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Jaoli, Post Ren, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Karmik (Ka-2) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. District Education Officer (Head Quarter), Secondary, Jalore.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary.
Mr. Rajendra Katariya.
Mr. Bhawani Singh Ransi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The petitioner, Rakesh Bishnoi, was selected and issued an appointment order for the post of Clerk Grade-II following a recruitment process conducted by the respondents (!) (!) .
-
The petitioner’s appointment was not accepted by the respondents due to the registration of two FIRs against him, which led to his not being allowed to join the duties (!) .
-
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his appointment by filing a writ petition, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one, leading to the current petition (!) .
-
The petitioner argued that the FIRs against him contained only bald allegations arising from a family dispute, and subsequent police investigations resulted in negative final reports, which were accepted by the court (!) .
-
The police also provided "OK" reports in subsequent verification reports, indicating no substantiated allegations against the petitioner (!) (!) .
-
The respondents contended that the appointment was canceled based on the FIRs but agreed to place the matter before the Screening Committee for further action, with a possibility of allowing the petitioner to join (!) .
-
The court observed that the police investigations found the allegations to be unsubstantiated, and the negative final reports, along with the "OK" reports, negate the basis for the initial cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment (!) (!) .
-
The court held that if allegations in a criminal case are found to be baseless and the case is decided in favor of the accused, it impacts the credibility of the initial suspicion, and the petitioner’s right to join his duties should be restored (!) (!) .
-
Accordingly, the court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to join his duties within two weeks, with all benefits and seniority to be extended from the date his immediate junior joined (!) .
-
The order of cancellation dated 27.01.2021 was quashed and set aside, and all pending applications, including stay petitions, were disposed of accordingly (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that the petitioner’s eligibility to join the post is now affirmed based on the police reports and the findings of the investigation, rendering the previous grounds for cancellation invalid (!) (!) .
These points summarize the case’s procedural history, the arguments regarding the FIRs and police investigations, and the court’s ultimate decision to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to his position.
Order
09/09/2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 27.01.2021 passed by the District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary, Jalore whereby appointment of the petitioner on the post of Clerk Grade-II was cancelled.
Briefly the facts necessary to be narrated in the present writ petition are that in pursuance of the advertisement No.7/2018 dated 16.04.2018 issued by the respondents, the petitioner applied for the post of Clerk Grade-II in OBC-NCL category. In the examination conducted by the respondents, the petitioner got selected in the selection process and appointment order dated 13.07.2020 was issued in his favour but before the petitioner could join his duties on the post of Clerk Grade-II, an FIR being F.I.R. No.49/2020 came to be registered against him. Thereafter, one more FIR being F.I.R. No.52/2020 arising out of the same incident was registered against the petitioner on 17.06.2020. When report of police verification reached the respondents, they did not allow the petitioner to join his duties on the post of Clerk Grade-II.
In these circumstances, aggrieved against the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to join his duties on the said post, the petitioner approached this court by way of filing a writ petition being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7058/2020. However, during the pendency of that writ petition, the respondents issued an order dated 27.01.2021 whereby appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. Hence, the petitioner withdrew S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7058/2020 with liberty to file a fresh writ petition. Thus, aggrieved against the order dated 27.01.2021, the present writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is true that the petitioner was facing investigation in two First Information reports registered against him after issuance of the appointment order by the respondents, however, in the aforesaid two FIRs, there were bald allegations against the petitioner and same was an outcome of some dispute arose between the two families. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not even remotely connected with the dispute mentioned in the FIRs. It is contended that even the Police after thorough investigation has filed negative reports in the two FIRs registered against the petitioner and same were accepted by the learned trial court. Learned counsel submits that after filing of the negative final report, the police has also given the petitioner “OK” report dated 15.04.2021 on the digital police verification report which is placed on record as Annex.16. Another verification report was forwarded by the police authorities on 23.05.2023 by giving “OK” report, the same is placed on record as Annexure-2 with the application for taking additional documents on record and disposal of the writ petition. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to join on the post of Clerk Grade-II is absolutely incorrect and arbitrary. He submits that even cancellation of the appointment is based upon two FIRs registered against the petitioner, however, in those two FIRs, the police has already filed negative final reports which have been accepted by the court of competent jurisdiction. He, therefore, prays that the order impugned 27.01.2021 may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be allowed to join his duties on the post of clerk Grade-II in pursuance of the appointment order issued in his favour.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled in view of registration of two FIRs against him and the said fact was reflected in the police verification report received by the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the latest police verification report and the fact that the police has filed negative final reports in both the FIRs r
