[2026:RJ-JD:1903]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9466/2017 Ravindrajeet Singh Pargi S/o Shri Vijay Shankar Pargi, By Caste Bheel St, Resident Of Village- Navaghara, Post- Tamatiya, Tehsil-

Anandpuri, District- Banswara Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Inspector General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. Superintendent Of Police, Banswara.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore with Mr. Chain Singh Rathore &

Ms. Ayushi Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Singh Bhati & Mr. Paramvir Singh for Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati, GC HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

13/01/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 20.07.2017 (Annexure-7) vide which selection of the petitioner on the post of Constable (Driver), stood rejected.

2. Vide order impugned dated 20.07.2017, the Superintendent of Police observed that the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on three counts:

i) Had not been honourably acquitted in the criminal matter;

ii) The offences for which he was tried were not trivial in nature; and iii) As per circular dated 28.03.2017, the employer was under a requirement to consider all relevant facts related to antecedents.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the recruitment in question pertained to the year 2016 whereas the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case in the year 2013 itself. It was not the case of the petitioner being a habitual offender or there being any other criminal antecedents.

4. Counsel further submits that it was not also a case of concealment as the application form did not have any requirement of filling up of the details of any of the criminal cases/FIRs.

5. Counsel lastly submits that the offences for which the petitioner was tried were evidently trivial in nature and did not comprise of any offence grievous in nature.

6. So far as circular dated 28.03.2017 is concerned, counsel relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Dinesh Singh Bithu; D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.20/2020 (decided on 10.03.2021) whereby the Court, while considering the same circular dated 28.03.2017, observed that if a person is acquitted of the charges for want of evidence, it would not necessarily lead to an inference that the acquittal is not honourable.

7. Counsel further relied upon a Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Shankar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.756/2022 (decided on 18.11.2024) whereby the Court observed that every acquittal is an honourable acquittal and the petitioner having been acquitted on basis that the prosecution failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt, would be termed to be an honourable acquittal only. Counsel hence submitted that order impugned deserves to be set aside.

8. Per contra counsel for the respondent-State while relying upon the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in Commissioner of Police vs. Raj Kumar; (2021) 8 SCC 347 submitted that the present recruitment pertained to that of a Constable which requires strict discipline and the person deployed in police force would be under a duty to maintain order and tackle lawlessness. A person who has remained involved in any offence grievous in nature, cannot be considered fit to be employed in services such as the police force.

9. Counsel further submitted that each case needs to be scrutinized by the public employer and herein, the competent authority specifically observed that the offence in question was not trivial in nature and hence, the candidature of the petitioner was rightly rejected.

10. Counsel for the respondents lastly submitted that there is no interim order operating in favour of the petitioner and hence, he cannot be granted any relief after more than eight years of the recruitment process