Rajasthan High Court
Sher Singh Meena S/O Shri Dhanpal ... vs The Director General Of Police on 20 January, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 72/2019
Sher Singh Meena S/o Shri Dhanpal Meena, Aged About 29
Years, B/c Meena, R/o Village And Post Badolass, Tehsil And
District Sawaimadhopur Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Director General Of Police, (Recruitment) Rajasthan,
Jaipur
2. The Superintendent Of Police, District Sawaimadhopur,
Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshita Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshal Tholia for Dr. Vibhuti
Bhushan Sharma, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
20/01/2021
The petitioner by way of this writ petition has prayed as
under:-
"It is, therefore, humbly and most
respectfully prayed that this writ petition may
kindly be accepted and allowed and the action
of the respondents whereby they are depriving
the petitioner by not giving appointment on the
post of Constable, may kindly be declared
illegal, unjust and further the respondents may
kindly be directed to give appointment to the
petitioner on the post of Constable GD Non TSP
with all consequential benefits by withdrawing
the order/letter dated 18.12.2018 (Annex.3)
passed by the respondent No.2"
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was selected for the post of Constable after having cleared the
requisite examination. However, on the basis of the report of SHO
(2 of 4) [CW-72/2019]
dated 26.9.2018 intimating that the petitioner has been involved
in one criminal case where he has been acquitted by the Judicial
Magistrate on 4.1.2016. The Superintendent of Police Sawai
Madhopur ousted the petitioner from select list vide order dated
18.12.2018.
Learned counsel submits that the order dated 18.12.2018 is
unjustified. It is submitted that acquittal had taken place in the
year 2016 and in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme
Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India, reported
in 2016 (8) SCC 471, the petitioner ought not have been
deprived of his appointment.
Learned counsel submits that there are government
instructions issued by the DG whereby there are similar cases
where there has been a concealment relating to an acquittal,
authorities have allowed appointments to be given. Learned
counsel submits that the authority has failed to take into
consideration the merit of the judgment passed by the Supreme
Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) for offence under Section
379 IPC for which the petitioner has been acquitted, could not
have been taken into consideration as sufficient for denying the
benefit of the Government instructions issued by the Department.
Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise a person who
is convicted also has right of consideration for appointment in
terms of Rule 13 of the Police Subordinate Services Rules.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits
that selections are over and now the matter has become
infructuous.
I have considered the submissions.
(3 of 4) [CW-72/2019]
Firstly, I deal with the contentions of the learned counsel for
the respondents and finds that in the present case, the petitioner
was already selected and it is after selection his candidature has
been rejected by the impugned order dated 18.12.2018.
In view thereof, the contention of the respondents that the
selection process is over have no bearing to the present case as
the petitioner stood already selected in the selection process,
therefore, the writ petition cannot be dismissed on that count.
Coming to the order dated 18.12.2018, this Court finds that
while the authority took into consideration the judgment passed
by the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), it has
proceeded to observe that the offence under Section 379 IPC
cannot be said to be of trivial nature without taking into
consideration that the petitioner has been acquitted of the said
offence. It is not a case where the petitioner has been convicted of
the offence. Thus, the order dated 18.12.2018 is found to be
perverse and is accordingly liable to be set aside.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with
regard to Rule 13 of the Police Subordinate Services Rules is also
required to be noticed. In fact, as per Rule 13 of the Police
Subordinate Services Rules, ex-prisoners, who have led disciplined
life, may also be allowed to participate in the selection process.
The case of the petitioner would be at better footing from such ex-
prisoners as he has been acquitted.
In view of above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed
and it is accordingly allowed. The order dated 18.12.2018 is
quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the
petitioner to join as per his selection on the post of Constable. His
(4 of 4) [CW-72/2019]
appointment shall be treated from the date persons along with
petitioner were given appointment and he would be entitled for
seniority and notional pay fixation from the same date. However,
the actual pay fixation shall be granted from the date he joins. It
would however not mean that the petitioner will not undergo
probation period. The probation period will have to be undergone
and pay fixation would be done thereafter. No costs.
All pending applications also stands disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
Arun/131
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
