##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:4093]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18402/2011

Rajendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Jai Narayan Meena, aged about

31 years, resident of Village Sisyawa, Post Akehpura, Police

Station Amer, Distt. Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary to the

Government, Department of Home, Government of

Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur.

3. Superintendent of Police (Dy. Commissioner), Police Head

Quarter, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Y. V. Nandwana Advocate on

behalf of Mr. Harsh Vardhan

Nandwana Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Vishesh Sharma Advocate and Mr.

Shubham Sharma Advocate on behalf

of Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi Deputy

Government Counsel.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

28/01/2026

1. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 20.10.2006 issued by

the Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), Jaipur City, whereby,

services of the petitioner have been terminated in exercise of

powers under Rule 23A of the Rajasthan Service Rules (hereinafter

to be referred as 'RSR'), the petitioner has approached this Court

praying for quashing of the aforesaid order as well as for issuance

of further direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner

on the post of Constable along with all consequential benefits.

(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 02:33:26 PM)

(Downloaded on 01/03/2026 at 04:57:26 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:4093] (2 of 7) [CW-18402/2011]

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents

initiated recruitment process for appointment on the post of

Constable by way of issuing Advertisement dated 14.06.2005.

After undergoing recruitment process, the petitioner was selected

and appointed vide order dated 13.07.2006 on probation of two

years.

3. Thereafter, as per the petitioner, without affording any

opportunity of hearing to him and in quite arbitrary manner,

services of the petitioner have been terminated under Rule 23A of

the RSR levelling allegation that the petitioner has suppressed the

fact with regard to pendency of criminal case registered against

him vide FIR No. 252/2003, wherein, after investigation, charge

sheet was filed before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far

as criminal case registered against the petitioner is concerned, the

petitioner has been acquitted of the charges in criminal appeal

vide judgment dated 19.01.2011 passed by the Court of Additional

District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur.

5. Main thrust of challenge to order dated 20.10.2006 is

that the petitioner was since appointed on probation of two years

after undergoing the entire process of recruitment, he cannot be

considered to be a temporary employee and the powers under

Rule 23A of the RSR can be exercised only in respect of a

temporary government servant. A probationer cannot be said to

be a temporary government servant. Learned counsel for the

petitioner, in support of this submission, relied upon the decision

of this Court in the case of Shubham Singh Shekhawat vs. The

(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 02:33:26 PM)

(Downloaded on 01/03/2026 at 04:57:26 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:4093] (3 of 7) [CW-18402/2011]

State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

19404/2022 and one other connected petition decided on

07.05.2025)

6. Writ petition filed by the petitioner has been opposed

by learned counsel for the respondents by submitting that the

police force is considered to be a disciplined force, hence, a person

seeking appointment in police force, should have highest degree

of responsibility to come with clean hands while seeking

appointment. In the present case, the petitioner had suppressed

criminal case, which was pending against the petitioner and by

making concealment of material fact, appointment was secured by

him. Learned counsel submit that the fact that the petitioner was

subsequently acquitted of the charges in th