State Of Rajasthan vs Ms. Sajjana
2022 Latest Caselaw 9036 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 684/2022

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

2. The Director General Of Police, Police Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus Ms. Sajjana D/o Shri Dhanna Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No. 14, Choudhriyo Ka Mohalla, Village Dhani Bhambhuan, Post Dhansia, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

                                                                    ----Respondent


   For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                        Order

REPORTABLE

   12/07/2022

The instant intra court appeal is directed against the

order dated 09.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench,

whereby the writ petition of the respondent M.S. Sajjana was

accepted and the respondents (appellants herein) were directed to

give her appointment on the post of Constable in the recruitment

process initiated vide recruitment notification dated 04.12.2019.

The respondent-petitioner applied for the post of

Constable in pursuance of the advertisement dated 04.12.2019.

   Her name appeared in the list of successful candidates.                   During


                                         (2 of 4)               [SAW-684/2022]

the course of character verification, it came to light that an FIR

had been registered against her. She did not disclose the factum

of registration of FIR in the application form and rather indicated

that no FIR had every been registered against her and thus,

treating it to be a case of false information, the order dated

09.08.2021 was issued holding the respondent writ petition to be

ineligible for appointment. The said order was challenged by the

respondent by filing the writ petition, which has been allowed vide

order dated 09.12.2021. Being aggrieved thereof, the instant

intra court appeal has been preferred, which is delayed by 173

days.

An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has

been filed to condone the delay. The grounds, which have been

set out in the application for condonation of delay, are totally

unconvincing. Para Nos.2 and 3 of the condonation application are

quoted hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference.

"2. That after obtaining of the legal opinion the matter

was forwarded to the Secretary and thereafter the

matter was placed before the Pre Litigation Committee.

Thereafter it was decided to prefer the appeal in the

order and the matter was forwarded to the Law

Department for sanction of Special Appeal, which

accordingly was granted.

3. The delay in filing the special appeal is unintentional

and bona fide and an important question of law is

involved in the case which has a far reaching effect and

therefore in interest of justice, this application of

condonation of delay may be allowed."

(3 of 4) [SAW-684/2022]

Despite that, we have heard the arguments advanced

by Mr. Manish Vyas, learned AAG, on merits of the case.

Mr. Manish Vyas, learned AAG, submits that it is an

admitted position as evident from record that the respondent was

arraigned as an accused in FIR No.228/2020 registered at the

Police Station Taranagar, District Churu for the offences punishable

under Sections 452, 323, 354, 427, 379 and 143 IPC. She

concealed this fact in the application form and thus, it being a

case of non-disclosure of fact of registration of a criminal case, the

respondent's candidature was rightly rejected.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

arguments advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned

judgment. We have also given careful consideration to the

grounds set out in the application for condonation of delay, which

have been reproduced supra.

On the face of the record, the grounds averred in the

application are totally frivolous. Law is well-settled that in an

application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act, each day's delay has to be explained. In the

present case, the application is miserably short of any kind of

particulars and not even a single date has been set out therein,

what to talk of offering explanation for each day's delay. Thus,

the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself.

Inspite thereof, we have examined merits of the matter.

It is not in dispute that FIR No.228/2020, which came

to be registered at the Police Station Taranagar, District Churu was

for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 354, 427,

379 and 143 IPC was in relation to an inter-family dispute. It is

also admitted that the investigating agency, thoroughly

(4 of 4) [SAW-684/2022]

investigated the matter and submitted a negative final report on

22.10.2020 and the same was accepted by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Taranagar by order dated 31.10.2020. Since the FIR

did not result into any adverse action being taken against the

respondent writ petitioner and as a negative final report was

proposed and submitted in the court, in the ordinary course of

events, there was no occasion for the respondent to have got

information regarding registration of such FIR against her. If at

all, the employer was having any information to the contrary, it

should have been brought on record. However, no such material

was placed on record. Hence, we are of the firm view that the

plea taken by the respondent that she was not aware of the

registration of the above FIR is substantiated from the factual

scenario narrated above. The FIR having resulted into a negative

final report within a short duration of two months from the

registration thereof, there was no occasion for the persons

arraigned in the FIR to have been notified regarding the

registration thereof. Hence, it is not a case, wherein the

respondent made any false declaration/concealment while

submitting application form for recruitment.

Consequently, we find no illegality or infirmity in the

impugned order dated 09.12.2021 passed by the learned Single

Bench warranting interference therein. The intra court appeal,

thus, fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit.

                                   (KULDEEP MATHUR),J                                         (SANDEEP MEHTA),J


                                    78-Pramod/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)