Balraj Meena S/O Shri Rambharosi ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3858 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3858 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 17 May, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

Balraj Meena S/O Shri Rambharosi ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 May, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6661/2022

Balraj Meena S/o Shri Rambharosi Meena, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Village And Post Chandera, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa,
Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director, Elementary
        Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
2.      District Education Officer, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Munesh Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

17/05/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayer:-

"It is therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire record relating to the case and after perusing the same; (I) By, an appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned online information dated 30.03.2022 & 05.04.2022, impugned circular dated 04.12.2019 and also impugned selection list dated 17.04.2002, whereby the less meritorious candidates than the petitioner were selected for the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) General Education, against the recruitment of year 2021-22, may kindly be quashed and set asided.

(ii) By, an appropriate writ order or directions, the respondents may kindly be directed for considering the candidature of the petitioner and further give appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) General Education, in ST General Category,

(2 of 5) [CW-6661/2022]

against the direct recruitment of the year 2021-22, according to his merit, from the date of junior candidates, with all consequential benefits.

(iii) Any other order(s) which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favor of the petitioner.

(iv) Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the

advertisement dated 31.12.2021, the petitioner applied for the

post of Teacher Grade-3 (Level-2) and after being successful in

the written examination, the petitioner was called for document

verification, however the respondents have rejected candidature

of the petitioner for appointment against the advertised post on

the ground of pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner,

in view of the circular dated 04.12.2019 (Clause-1) issued by the

Department of Personnel, State of Rajasthan.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has

not concealed from the respondents with regard to pendency of

the criminal case and he has very well mentioned in the

application form that one criminal case arising out of FIR

No.96/2017 lodged on 21.06.2017 with regard to offences under

Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323 & 447 of I.P.C. is pending

trial before the A.D.J. Court, Sikrai. Counsel further submits that

the respondents have wrongfully denied appointment to the

petitioner on the ground of pendency of criminal case against him.

He relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate

Bench of this court in the matter of Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 09.05.2012.

Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG appearing as caveator opposed the writ

petition.

(3 of 5) [CW-6661/2022]

He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Love

Kush Meena, reported in (2021) 8 SCC 774 where in paras-24,

25 & 28 it has been held as under :-

"24. Examining the controversy in the present case in the conspectus of the aforesaid legal position, what is important to note is the fact that the view of this Court has depended on the nature of offence charged and the result of the same. The mere fact of an acquittal would not suffice but rather it would depend on whether it is a clean acquittal based on total absence of evidence or in the criminal jurisprudence requiring the case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, that parameter having not been met, benefit of doubt has been granted to the Accused. No doubt, in that facts of the present case, the person who ran the tractor over the deceased lady was one of the other co-Accused but the role assigned to the others including the Respondent herein was not of a mere bystander or being present at site. The attack with knives was alleged against all the other co-Accused including the Respondent.

25. We may also notice this is a clear case where the endeavour was to settle the dispute, albeit not with the job in mind. This is obvious from the recital in the judgment of the Trial Court that the compoundable offences were first compounded during trial but since the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC could not be compounded, the Trial Court continued and qua those offences the witnesses turned hostile. We are of the view that this can hardly fall under the category of a clean acquittal and the Judge was thus right in using the terminology of benefit of doubt in respect of such acquittal.

28. We may note here that the circular dated 28.03.2017 is undoubtedly very wide in its application. It seeks to give

(4 of 5) [CW-6661/2022]

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