Teja Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 9340 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6207/2022

Teja Ram S/o Shri Purkha Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Mailana, Tehsil Baori, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Elementary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. D.S. Sodha.
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                     Order

18/07/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against rejection of his candidature for the post of Teacher Gr.III

(Level-I).

It is, inter-alia, submitted in the petition that the candidature

of the petitioner has been rejected on account of pendency of a

criminal case, however, while the respondents were in the process

of considering the candidature of the petitioner on account of

pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted by the

competent criminal court on 01.04.2022, but without considering

the said aspect the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected

on 17.04.2022 and therefore, the action of the respondents in this

regard is not justified.

(2 of 3) [CW-6207/2022]

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that

admittedly, the petitioner was facing criminal trial and the fact

that the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal court was not

brought to the notice of the respondents before the decision in

this regard was taken by the respondents and therefore, the

respondents cannot be faulted on the said aspect.

Submissions have been made that even in the case of

acquittal, a committee under circular dated 04.12.2019 (Annex.9)

is required to examine as to whether based on acquittal, the

candidate is required to be accorded appointment and as such,

merely based on the acquittal of the petitioner, he is not entitled

for getting appointment pursuant to the recruitment.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

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

Admittedly, in terms of the circular dated 04.12.2019

(Annex.9), the respondents are required to consider the fact of

acquittal of the petitioner before taking a decision regarding denial

of appointment to the petitioner on account of pending trial /

acquittal and in the present case, the said consideration has not

taken place purportedly on account of the fact that the decision of

the criminal court was not communicated to the respondents.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the

respondents need to examine the case of the petitioner afresh

based on the judgment of acquittal by the competent criminal

court dated 01.04.2022 and pass appropriate order in this regard.

In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner

is allowed. The rejection of petitioner's candidature is set-aside.

The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the

petitioner after taking into consideration his acquittal by the

(3 of 3) [CW-6207/2022]

criminal court by the judgment dated 01.04.2022 and pass

appropriate order in this regard.

Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of

six weeks.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 96-Rmathur/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)