Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babulal Moond vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 April, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7892/2020
Babulal Moond S/o Shri Girdhari Moond, Aged About 28 Years, R/
o Village Moondsar, District Bikaner (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Secondary
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
2. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary,
Bikaner.
3. The Principal, Government Senior Secondary School,
Napasar, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratana Ram Khileree
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Choudhary
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
06/04/2021
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has
challenged the communication dated 17.8.2020, whereby he has
been declared ineligible on account of pendency of criminal case
against him.
2. The facts appertain are that the petitioner applied for the
post of Lab Assistant pursuant to recruitment notification dated
9.5.2018. Having cleared written examination and other
formalities, the petitioner was offered appointment vide order
dated 8.8.2020.
(2 of 4) [CW-7892/2020]
3. The petitioner was required to join as Lab Assistant in
Government Senior Secondary School, Napasar, Bikaner by
18.8.2020. He was further required to furnish a character
certificate issued by the Superintendent of Police, apart from other
formalities.
4. In the character certificate/police verification certificate
submitted by the petitioner, it was intimated by the
Superintendent of Police that, a case under Sections 332, 336 and
353 of the IPC and under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage
to Public Property Act is pending against him.
5. Such being the position, the respondent No.3 did not allow
the petitioner to join and branded him ineligible for appointment
vide communication dated 17.8.2020.
6. Mr. Ratana Ram Khileree, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner invited Court's attention towards the FIR, that has been
lodged against the petitioner and while maintaining that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated, submitted that the incident
took place on the spur of moment, out of sudden outburst and
the investigating officer has intentionally roped in the petitioner,
along with other family members.
7. He nevertheless maintained that the allegations even if are
taken into consideration, are of trivial nature and the petitioner
cannot be denied appointment under the Education Subordinate
Service Rules,1971.
8. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the
coordinate Bench judgment dated 11.2.2019 rendered in the case
of Mahendra Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP
NO.19152/2018) and submitted that the petitioner is also entitled
for appointment and for the aforesaid purpose, he is prepared to
(3 of 4) [CW-7892/2020]
furnish an undertaking as has been ordered by this Court in the
case of Mahendra Singh (supra).
9. Mr. Choudhary, learned Government Advocate appearing for
the respondent-State supporting the order impugned dated
17.8.2020, submitted that the petitioner has indulged in
manhandling with the police authorities while on duty and thus,
his appointment has rightly been canceled by the respondents.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this
Court is of the opinion that the order/action of respondent No.3 in
issuing order dated 17.8.2020 and declaring him ineligible, that
too, without issuing notice, is not only illegal,but also, without
jurisdiction. Respondent No.3 can at the best not allow the
petitioner to join and refer the matter to District Education Officer
for cancelling the selection, if required. He cannot pronounce
upon petitioner's eligibility, as he is not petitioner's appointing
authority.
11. For the reasons stated above and following the judgment of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of
India & Ors. reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 and judgment of this
Court rendered in the case of Mahendra Singh Rathore (supra) and
the judgment dated 16.9.2020 rendered in the case of Devid
Vikram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.8855/2020), the
instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
17.8.2020 is hereby quashed.
12. The respondents are directed to allot appropriate posting and
joining to the petitioner on the post of Lab Assistant, if he fulfills
other conditions of the appointment order dated 8.8.2020.
(4 of 4) [CW-7892/2020]
13. The petitioner shall appear before the DEO (Headquarter),
Secondary, Bikaner on 26.4.2021, who shall provide him fresh
positing order; however, upon petitioner's furnishing an
undertaking that in case of conviction, the State will be free to
take up appropriate proceedings, including cancellation of his
appointment or terminating him
14. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential notional
benefits from the date of appointment i.e., 8.8.2020.
15. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
21-CPGoyal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
