Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Prahlad Meena vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 January, 2022

Bench: Rekha Borana

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16180/2018

Prahlad Meena S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Kolyabas, Tehsil Nangal, Rajavatan, District Dausa.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home-Affairs, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters, Govt.

Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Jodhpur Rural, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manjeet Godara through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Bissa through VC

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

27/01/2022

The present petitioner applied for the post of Constable and

after being successful in the examination he was expecting letter

for appointment but the appointment was not offered to him. It

was informed by the respondent-Department that due to his

involvement in criminal case in the past and the same fact being

concealed by the petitioner, he was not offered the appointment.

Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred a writ

petition being Civil Writ Petition No.11916/2014 which was

withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. Thereafter, a

petition being Civil Writ Petition No.3383/2017 was filed by the

petitioner which was disposed on 28.03.2017 on the terms of

judgment as passed in Babu Lal Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan &

(2 of 6) [CW-16180/2018]

Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2073/2016 decided on

13.02.2017).

On 11.07.2017, an order was passed by the respondent-

authorities rejecting the representation of the petitioner and

aggrieved against the same, the petitioner again moved a writ

petition before this Court which was registered as Civil Writ

Petition No.9487/2017. Vide order dated 08.03.2018, the order

dated 11.07.2017 was quashed and the respondent-authorities

were directed to pass a detailed and speaking order with the

following directions:

"5. That being the position, the matters are remanded back to the learned Authorities to decide the representation keeping in mind precedent law of Avtar Singh and various circulars issued by Department of Personnel. The respondents shall further be required to :-

a) give separate finding on applicability of the circulars;

b) give separate finding on applicability of precedent law of Avtar Singh;

c) nature of case against petitioners & gravity of penal offence; and

d) conclusion of criminal proceedings against the petitioners."

In pursuance to the directions as issued vide order dated

08.03.2018, the respondent-authorities proceeded on to

reconsider the case of the petitioner and vide order dated

05.10.2018, held that the petitioner is not entitled for

appointment. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ

petition has been filed.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated

05.10.2018 is not in strict compliance to the directions of this

Court passed vide order dated 08.03.2018. Counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the circular dated 28.03.2017 issued by

(3 of 6) [CW-16180/2018]

the Department specifically provided that those candidates who

had been acquitted on the basis of compromise were entitled for

appointment. In addition, the said circular also provided that even

if the information of the criminal antecedents has been given in

any one of the documents - the application form or the Character

Verification form, the candidates would be liable for appointment.

Counsel further submitted that the criminal cases registered

against him had been decided way back in the year 2005 on the

basis of compromise and therefore, in terms of the circular dated

28.03.2017, he was entitled for appointment.

Per contra, counsel for the respondents submitted that the

impugned order has been passed in strict compliance of the

directions as issued by this Court vide order dated 08.03.2018 and

while passing the said order, the circulars prevailing at the

relevant time; the ratio as laid down in Avtar Singh vs. Union of

India & Ors. reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471; the criminal

proceedings registered against the petitioner; and the result

thereof have been duly considered. Therefore, the same is a

detailed and a speaking order. Counsel has relied upon the

judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of :

1. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Love Kush Meena;

Civil Appeal No.3894/2020.

2. Rajesh Kumar Vs. Union of India through Chief of

Army Staff & Ors.; Civil Appeal No.7353-7354/2009.

3. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Anr.

Vs. Anil Kanwariya; Civil Appeal Nos.5743-5744/2021.

Counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the

ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the employer was

(4 of 6) [CW-16180/2018]

fully justified in denying appointment to the petitioner as it was a

clear case of intentional concealment of criminal antecedents.

There was a specific column in the application form requiring the

candidate to furnish the details of any criminal proceedings

registered against him to which the petitioner has replied in

negative.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

It is clear on record that the petitioner had concealed the

fact of his criminal antecedents despite there being a specific

requirement of the same being filled up in the application form.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Rajya

Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Anr. Vs. Anil Kanwariya (Civil

Appeal Nos.5743-5744/2021) held as under:

"12. The issue/question may be considered from another angle, from the employer's point of view. The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment, i.e., while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST. Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and as observed hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee cannot claim the

(5 of 6) [CW-16180/2018]

appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right."

In view of the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court,

in the cases of concealment/non-disclosure, it is the complete

discretion of the employer to provide or deny the appointment to

the candidate. In the present case the respondent-authorities

have specifically reached to the conclusion that the offences for

which the petitioner had been tried were not trivial in nature and

did incorporate of criminal violence. The authorities reached to a

specific conclusion that the acquittal of the petitioner was not an

honourable acquittal as the same was based on the benefit of

doubt being given.

So far as the reliance of the counsel for the petitioner on the

circular dated 28.03.2017 is concerned;

Firstly, the present recruitment pertains to the year 2012

and the select list was issued in the year 2013. Therefore,

Circular dated 28.03.2017 could not have been applied to the

petitioner.

Secondly, while dealing with the same Circular dated

28.03.2017, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the State of

Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Love Kush Meena (Civil Appeal

No.3894/2020) held as under:

"27. We may note here that the circular dated 28.03.2017 is undoubtedly very wide in its application. It seeks to give the benefit to candidates including those acquitted by the Court by giving benefit of doubt. However, such circular has to be read in the context of the judicial pronouncements and when this Court has repeatedly opined that giving benefit of doubt would not entitle candidate for appointment, despite the circular, the impugned decision of the competent authority dated 23.05.2017 cannot be said to suffer from infirmity as being in violation of

(6 of 6) [CW-16180/2018]

the circular when it is in conformity with the law laid down by this Court."

In view of the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court

the present being prima facie a case of concealment, this Court is

not inclined to interfere with the findings of the respondent-