Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 15447

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Ravi Chirania, J
Lokesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4203/2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gordhan Singh Fauzdar
For the Respondents: Somitra Chaturvedi

A candidate granted the benefit of probation and having their disqualification removed under the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be denied government employment on the basis of a criminal conviction, as the Act's reformative and non-obstante provisions prevail over administrative circulars.

Headnote:(A) Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Sections 3, 4 and 12 - Constitution of India - Articles 16 and 21 - Employment - Denial of appointment - Criminal antecedents - Benefit of probation - Removal of disqualification - A person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of Section 3 or 4 of the Act shall not suffer disqualification attaching to a conviction - The Act is a beneficial legislation intended to reform offenders; thus, its provisions must be interpreted in a purposive manner. Disqualification flowing from a conviction cannot be used to deny employment when the court has granted the benefit of probation and removed such disqualification. (Paras 14, 14.1, 17, 21, 24, 25.1)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a candidate for the post of constable, was denied appointment due to the pendency and later conviction in a criminal case involving matrimonial disputes. During the process, the trial court convicted the candidate but granted the benefit of probation under the relevant Act, specifically removing the disqualification attaching to the conviction. Subsequently, the appellate court allowed the candidate's appeal and acquitted him by giving the benefit of doubt. The state continued to withhold the appointment, relying on its internal circulars regarding criminal antecedents.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Act providing for probation of offenders is a beneficial legislation with an overriding effect. Once the trial court granted the benefit of probation and removed disqualification, the state could not rely on internal administrative circulars to deny a meritorious candidate appointment. Furthermore, the subsequent acquittal by the appellate court removed any remaining hurdle to employment. The court held that matrimonial disputes resulting in conviction should not permanently bar an individual from employment where statutory reformative measures have been applied.

Issues: Whether the state can deny appointment to a candidate on the basis of a criminal conviction when the trial court has granted the benefit of probation and removed disqualification under the relevant Act, and whether such denial violates the candidate's fundamental rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The Probation of Offenders Act is a special statute meant to rehabilitate offenders. Section 12, which contains a non obstante clause, takes precedence over departmental circulars. Therefore, a candidate who is granted probation and has the disqualification from their conviction removed by a court cannot be denied government employment on the basis of that conviction.

Result: Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to appoint the petitioner.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks appointment after selection, despite criminal pendency disclosure. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. probation act benefits and acquittal remove disqualification for public appointment. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. section 12 of probation act overrides departmental circulars regarding disqualification. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. reformation theory mandates reintegration of offenders into mainstream society. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
5. court directs appointment where criminal disqualification is statutorily removed. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)

Judgment

Reportable

1.	Date of conclusion of Arguments	15.04.2026
2.	Date on which the judgment was reserved	15.04.2026
3.	Whether the full judgment or only operative part is pronounced	Full
4.	Date of pronouncement	19.05.2026

1. Petitioner Lokesh Kumar has filed the instant writ petition with the prayer that respondents be directed to give him appointment on the post of Constable in pursuance to the advertisement dated 29.10.2021, whereby more than 4,400 vacancies were advertised.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gordhan Singh Fauzdar submitted that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 29.10.2021, the petitioner submitted his application form and he cleared all the stages of selection process. Thereafter, the respondents vide press note dated 17.11.2022 called all the selected candidates along with him for document verification. In the press note dated 17.11.2022, the Selection Board of the respondents issued a list of 800 persons for document verification, in which the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 101. After document verification, when the name of the petitioner did not appear in the list of finally selected candidates and he was not assigned the Belt Number and was not issued the appointment order, he inquired about the same from the respondents herein. He was informed that as per the disclosure made at the time of document verification, about pendency of a criminal case, he has not been issued the appointment order in terms of notification/circular issued by Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan and Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Counsel submitted that after clearing all the stage of selection process, on being asked specific information regarding pendency of criminal case, he disclosed the complete and correct facts and there was no concealment on his part.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is an unmarried person and his bhabhi (wife of his elder brother Arvind) lodged an FIR against her husband and other family members including the petitioner herein, on which FIR bearing No. 235/2016 was registered for offences under Sections 498A , 323 and 406 of the IPC, 1860. He further submitted that at the time of document verification, the said criminal case was pending which he disclosed fairly. When the petitioner was not given appointment, he immediately approached this Court by way of present writ petition in which the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.03.2023, issued notices and directed the respondents to keep one post vacant for the petitioner in the OBC Category. He further submitted that the respondents filed reply to the writ petition in which they have tried to justify their action of not giving the appointment in terms of the circular/notification as issued, which bars the appointment due to pendency of the criminal case, conviction etc. He further submitted that during the pendency of this writ petition, the said criminal case was concluded by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 01.05.2025 (Regular Criminal Case No. 68/2021) (CIS No. 68/2021). The learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner and all family members for offences under Sections 498A and 323 IPC but was not awarded the punishment and rather the benefit of Section 4 (1) of the Act of 1958 was given to him. The petitioner and all th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 15447

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)Ravi Chirania, JLokesh Kumar – AppellantVersusState Of Rajasthan – RespondentS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4203/2023

A candidate granted the benefit of probation and having their disqualification removed under the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be denied government employment on the basis of a criminal conviction, as the Act's reformative and non-obstante provisions prevail over administrative circulars.

Cases Referred (2)

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Ravi Chirania, J
Lokesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4203/2023