HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6207/2022 Teja Ram S/o Shri Purkha Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Mailana, Tehsil Baori, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Elementary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Sodha.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
18/07/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against rejection of his candidature for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-I).
It is, inter-alia, submitted in the petition that the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on account of pendency of a criminal case, however, while the respondents were in the process of considering the candidature of the petitioner on account of pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted by the competent criminal court on 01.04.2022, but without considering the said aspect the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on 17.04.2022 and therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard is not justified.
(Downloaded on 18/07/2022 at 08:59:44 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-6207/2022] Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that admittedly, the petitioner was facing criminal trial and the fact that the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal court was not brought to the notice of the respondents before the decision in this regard was taken by the respondents and therefore, the respondents cannot be faulted on the said aspect.
Submissions have been made that even in the case of acquittal, a committee under circular dated 04.12.2019 (Annex.9) is required to examine as to whether based on acquittal, the candidate is required to be accorded appointment and as such, merely based on the acquittal of the petitioner, he is not entitled for getting appointment pursuant to the recruitment.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
Admittedly, in terms of the circular dated 04.12.2019 (Annex.9), the respondents are required to consider the fact of acquittal of the petitioner before taking a decision regarding denial of appointment to the petitioner on account of pending trial / acquittal and in the present case, the said consideration has not taken place purportedly on account of the fact that the decision of the criminal court was not communicated to the respondents.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the respondents need to examine the case of the petitioner afresh based on the judgment of acquittal by the competent criminal court dated 01.04.2022 and pass appropriate order in this regard.
In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The rejection of petitioner's candidature is set-aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner after taking into consideration his acquittal by the (Downloaded on 18/07/2022 at 08:59:44 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-6207/2022] criminal court by the judgment dated 01.04.2022 and pass appropriate order in this regard.
Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of six weeks.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 96-Rmathur/-
(Downloaded on 18/07/2022 at 08:59:44 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)