(1 of 15)

[SAW-1334/2019]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1334/2019

Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Prithvi Singh aged 28 years by caste Jat,

R/o Village Ratanpura, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh

----Appellant

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan – Through Secretary, Home Department,

Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur

2. Director General of Police (Recruitment), Government of

Rajasthan, Jaipur

3. Commandant, Maharana Pratap Batalion, R.A.C. (I.R.),

Pratapgarh cum Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Nitin Gokhlani

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment

Date of pronouncement : 27/01/2022

Judgment reserved on : 10/12/2021

BY THE COURT : PER HON’BLE MEHTA, J.

The instant intra court appeal has been filed by the

appellant Pawan Kumar being aggrieved of the order dated

13.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Bench of this court,

whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant against the

order dated 05.03.2019 (Annex.5) declaring the appellant

ineligible for appointment on the post of Police Constable was

dismissed.

We have heard and considered the submissions

advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned order and

(2 of 15)

[SAW-1334/2019]

the material placed on record. The appellant writ petitioner

applied for the post of Police Constable pursuant to the

recruitment notification issued by the respondents in the year

2018. He appeared in the written test, whereafter he was

summoned for Physical Standard Test/Physical Efficiency Test

(PST/PET). His name was reflected in the merit list and he was

called for document verification. During police verification, it

came to light in the year 2015, the appellant had been convicted

for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 IPC by

the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, Haryana.

Consequently, his candidature was rejected vide order dated

05.03.2019 (Annex.5), which was unsuccessfully assailed in the

writ petition as stated above.

Mr. Nitin Gokhlani, learned counsel representing the

appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that the appellant

was granted probation in the criminal case, wherein he was

convicted for the offences punishable under Section 419 and 420

IPC. Thus, as per Mr. Gokhlani, the petitioner’s candidature is

saved by virtue of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

As per Mr. Gokhlani, the learned Single Judge did not consider this

legal aspect in the correct perspective. He placed reliance on the

Supreme Court judgment in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union

of India & Ors. [(2016) 8 SCC 471] and the Delhi High Court

judgment in a bunch of writ petitions led by Commissioner of

Police & Anr. Vs. Narender Kumar Singh [W.P. (C)

No.8499/2011 decided on 13.02.2013] and urged that the

appellant is entitled to claim protection from disqualification based

(3 of 15)

[SAW-1334/2019]

on conviction by virtue of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders

Act and thus, the respondents were totally unjustified in declaring

the appellant to be disqualified and in cancelling his appointment

to the post of Police Constable despite being selected on merit.

He, thus urged that the impugned orders are arbitrary and bad in

the eyes of law and hence, the same deserve to be set aside. On

these submissions, Mr. Gokhlani implored the court to accept the

appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct appointment of

the appellant as Police Constable in the subject selection process.

Per contra, Mr. Manish Vyas, learned AAG, vehemently

and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the

appellant’s counsel. He contended that while rejecting his

candidature of the appellant, his conduct was taken into account

and it was fou