[2025:RJ-JD:53961]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21829/2025 Suresh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ramdev Meena, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Bada Naya Gaon, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Ayurved & Indian Medicine Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Joint Secretary, Ayurved, Yoga & Naturopathy Medicine, Unani, Siddha And Homeopathy (AYUSH) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

4. The Director, Ayurved Department, Ashok Marg, Lohagal Road, Savitri College Circle, Ajmer.

5. The Medical Officer In-Charge, Govt. Ayurved Hospital, Barath Ka Gaon, Pokhran, District Jaisalmer.

6. The Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaisalmer.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yashpal Khileree For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

15/12/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.09.2025 (Annex.18) whereunder the petitioner’s request for consideration of his appointment to the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade was rejected on the ground that a criminal case is pending against him.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the mere pendency of a criminal case does not disqualify the petitioner from being appointed to the post for which he was selected and that the disqualification was done basing on the circular dated 04.12.2019 (Annex.19).

3. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by considering the said circular and the aspect of disqualification on the ground of pendency of a criminal case, has passed the order dated 27.11.2024 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13198/2024 : Amrit Pal Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 27.11.2024 (supra) read as under:

“7. Prima facie, having seen the impugned order dated 08.03.2024 which is being termed as a speaking order, it is anything but speaking. It does not clarify as to how the nature of pending criminal trial in any manner impeached the duties to be performed by the petitioner and/or how does it amount to a moral turpitude without there being any finding of facts and or criminal culpability. At best, the petitioner is merely an under trial and his fate is yet to be governed depending on the outcome of the trial. Furthermore, possibility of a compromise between husband and wife cannot be ruled out at subsequent stage. Be that as it may, mere break down of a marriage cannot be treated as if the husband is the sole erring party just because his wife has chosen to press criminal charges against him, which are yet to be proved.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also rightly relies on a co-ordinate Bench judgment rendered in Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., wherein, it was held that on account of pendency of criminal case the petitioner cannot be denied appointment. In the case of Mukesh Kumar (supra), the coordinate bench of this court after considering various aspects of the matter laid down as under:-

“15. Viewed in light of the above factual scenario, it is evident that the Rules not post any hurdle against the petitioner’s right to be appointed in the police services. At best, a rider can be imposed in the petitioner’s appointment order that in the event of conviction in the above criminal case, he may be liable to be terminated from service without holding (5 of 6) any enquiry and an undertaking in this regard can be procured from him in this regard.

16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner on the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the questioned selection process ignoring the pendency of the above criminal case against the petitioner. However, the appointment order shall bear a condition that the petitioner’s services may be terminated in the eve