Ravindra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 269 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 269 Raj
Judgement Date : 8 January, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ravindra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 January, 2021

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15511/2019

Ravindra Kumar S/o Shri Prem Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Chak 6 Kd, Ward No. 6, Post Office, Panch Pesti, Tehsil Rawla Mandi, District Sriganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. Inspector General Of Police, Armed Battalion, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

5. Commandant Maharana Pratap Battalion, R.a.c. (I.r.), Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

6. Dy. Commandant, Maharana Pratap Battalion R.a.c. (I.r.), Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary through V.C. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Choudhary for Mr. Manish Vyas, through V.C.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

08/01/2021

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the order dated 02.09.2019 (Annex.-6), whereby a

decision has been taken by the respondents not to recommend the

petitioner for appointment on account of the fact that acquittal of

the petitioner in a criminal case was on account of having been

given benefit of doubt and on account of compromise.

It is, inter alia, indicated that the petitioner got selected for

the post of Constable, however, on account of the fact that the

petitioner had been tried for offences under Sections 323, 341

(2 of 4) [CW-15511/2019]

read with Section 34 IPC, wherein while the petitioner was given

benefit ouf doubt qua the offences under Section 324/34 IPC and

qua offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC he was acquitted on

account of compromise, the matter was referred to Inspector

General of Police (Recruitment), who by order dated 02.09.2019

(Annex.-6), has opined that as the acquittal was not honourable,

the petitioner was not eligible for appointment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue

raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment

of this Court in Kuldeep Bhakar v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW No.

19166/2018 and other connected matters, decided on

13.03.2019, whereby similar nature writ petitions were allowed

and that the special appeal filed by the State in one of the case

has been dismissed by the Division Bench in State of Raj. & Ors.

v. Atma Ram : DBSAW No. 33/2020, decided on 27.01.2020 and,

therefore, the order impugned passed by the respondents

deserves to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the stand of

the State that as the acquittal of the petitioner was not

honourable, he was not entitled for appointment.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

This Court in the case of Kuldeep Bhakar/Atma Ram (supra),

after taking into consideration all the aspects has, inter alia laid

down and directed as under:-

"A perusal of the above reasons indicated in the orders impugned clearly indicates that the orders have been passed mechanically by merely indicating that the acquittal is not clean. Neither the antecedents nor the relevant facts with regard to

(3 of 4) [CW-15511/2019]

acquittal of the petitioners have been considered by the respondents.

So far as the judgment in the case of S. Samuthiram (supra) cited by learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, the said judgment would have no application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, by respondent department's own Circular dated 28.02.2017 the parameters have been laid down wherein candidates acquitted from criminal charges based on compromise or grant of benefit of doubt have been held eligible for grant of appointment.

Similarly, in the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra), a perusal of the judgment would indicate that the respondents therein had indicated the reasons for coming to the conclusion that despite acquittal, the candidates were not entitled for appointment. Further in the said case also there was no circular/guidelines like Circular dated 28.02.2017 issued by the Department therein providing for eligibility in case of acquittals.

In view of the above, the judgments cited and the attempt made by learned counsel for the respondents to distinguish the judgment in the case of Lokesh Meena (supra)/seek reconsideration of judgment in the case of Lokesh Meena (supra) has no substance.

In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The impugned orders dated 27.11.2018 (Annexure-7), 11.12.2018 (Annexure-12) and 18.12.2018 (Annexure-10) passed by the respondents in respective petitions are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to accord appointment to the petitioners pursuant to their selections, if they are otherwise eligible. The petitioners would be entitled to notional benefits from the date appointment has been accorded to the candidates lower in merit to the petitioners. However, actual monetary benefits would be paid to the petitioners from the date of appointment.