Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Leela Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 January, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 515/2022
Leela Choudhary D/o Jaisa Ram W/o Hemraj, Aged About 31
Years, Resident Of Village Post Chuli Dungari, Chohtan, District
Barmer (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Medical And Health Services,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Agarwal (through VC)
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vandana Bhansali (through VC)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
28/01/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
direction to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner
on the post of ANM on urgent temporary basis.
It is inter-alia indicated in the writ petition that respondents
issued advertisement dated 19.06.2021 advertising 250 post for
ANM and indicated the professional qualification.
The petitioner fulfilling the provisional qualification applied
for the same and by office order dated 26.11.2021, the candidates
were called for document verification.
Whereafter, by order dated 17.12.2021, the petitioner, who
was provisionally selected, was required to appear for document
verification.
(2 of 4) [CW-515/2022]
The petitioner, in the character verification indicated that a
case under Section 419 of IPC was pending consideration before
the criminal court against her and in the police verification also,
the said aspect was indicated about the trial being pending against
the petitioner.
After the document verification by order dated 27.12.2021
appointments were accorded, however, the name of the petitioner
did not appear in the list of selected candidates, the petitioner
sought information regarding the non-inclusion of her name,
wherein, by a communication dated 03.01.2022 (Annex.7), the
petitioner was informed that in terms of Circular dated
04.12.2019, as a matter pertaining to criminal case pertaining to
cheating was pending against the petitioner, she was not entitled
for appointment.
Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition has been
filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to
judgments in the case of Mahendra Singh Rathore v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19152/2018,
decided on 11.02.2019 and Mahendra Singh Meena v. State
of Rajasthan & Ors.: 1153/2020, decided on 02.09.2020,
made submissions that action of the respondents in passing
the order impugned dis-entitling the petitioner on account of
pendency of a criminal case against her, is not justified and
on that count, the order impugned deserves to be set-aside.
Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions with
reference to the Circular dated 04.12.2019 (Annex.4) indicating
that under the said Circular on account of pendency of a criminal
case also, the candidate has been held to be ineligible.
(3 of 4) [CW-515/2022]
Submissions were made that judgment in the case of
Mahendra Singh Rathore (supra) was delivered prior to the
Circular dated 04.12.2019 on 11.02.2019 and that Division Bench
in the appeal arising from the case of Mahendra Singh Meena
(supra) came to the conclusion that as the said case did not fall
within the parameters indicated in Circular dated 04.12.2019, the
petitioners therein were entitled for appointment, whereas, the
case of the petitioner, who is being tried for impersonation in a
public examination falls within the said Circular dated 04.12.2019
and as such, the petition deserves dismissal.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner is being tried by a
criminal court for offence under Section 419 of IPC. The circular
dated 04.12.2019 (Annex.R/4) issued by the respondents
apparently after the judgment in the case of Mahendra Singh
Rathore (supra) was delivered on 11.02.2019 inter-alia provides
as under:-
"1- ,sls [email protected];ka ftuesa fu;qfDr gsrq vik=rk ekuh
tkuh pkfg,%&
;fn fdlh Hkh vH;FkhZ ds fo:) fuEu esa ls fdlh Hkh
izdkj ds vijk/k ds rgr izdj.k vUos{k.kk/[email protected];k;ky; esa
fopkjk/khu (under trial) gS vFkok nks'kflf) mijkar ltk gks
pqdh gS] rks mls jkT; ds v/khu [email protected] ij fu;qfDr gsrq
ik= ugha ekuk tkuk pkfg, %&
¼1½ uSfrd v/kerk ;Fkk Ny] dwVjpuk] eRrrk]
cykr~lax] fdlh efgyk dh yTtk Hkax djus ds vijk/k esa
vUroZfyrrk (involvement) gksA"
The Circular of the State is very clear, wherein, even in a
case, where the applicant is under trial for offences inter-alia
involving cheating, has been held to be ineligible.
(4 of 4) [CW-515/2022]
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Methu Meda:
(2022) 1 SCC 1 has laid down that the employer has the right to
consider the suitability of the candidate as per government orders/
instructions/rules at the time of taking the decision for induction
of the candidate in employment.
In that view of the matter, the denial of appointment to the
petitioner by the respondents on account of pending trial for
offence of impersonation cannot be faulted. So far as the
judgment in the case of Mahendra Singh Rathore (supra) is
concerned, the said judgment was delivered when the Circular
dated 04.12.2019 was not in existence and as such, it was laid
down that on account of pending criminal trial, the person cannot
be debarred by the respondents.
In view of above discussion, no case for interference is made
out in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
38-pradeep/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
