Manju Kanwar vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 7635 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5783/2022

Manju Kanwar D/o Amar Singh W/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh, aged about 33 Years, R/o Bag Ka Darwaja, Bagdi Nagar, District Pali, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Director, Elementary Education and Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. District Education Officer (HQ), Elementary Education, Jodhpur.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5766/2022 Govind Singh Chundawat S/o Shri Sajjan Singh Chundawat, aged about 27 Years, R/o Village Majawato Ka Guda, Post Samoda, Tehsil Salumber, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Director, Elementary Education Department, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. District Education Officer (Elementary), District Udaipur.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Pramendra Bohra.
                                Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG.


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI




                                          (2 of 6)           [CW-5783/2022 & 5766/2022]

                                        Order


23/05/2022

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners

aggrieved against rejection of their candidature by the

respondents referring to Circular dated 04.12.2019 (Annex.R/3)

on account of coming to the conclusion that though acquitted, as

the acquittal of the petitioners is not 'honourable' they are not

eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-1.

It is inter-alia indicated in the petitions that the petitioners

applied pursuant to advertisement dated 31.12.2021 for the post

of Teacher Grade-III Level-1. The names of the petitioners

appeared in the list of the candidates, who were later on called for

document verification. The petitioners uploaded their documents,

however, by impugned order their candidature has been rejected

by referring to the Circular and indicating that as the trial was

pending against them, or they have been convicted, they aren't

entitled for appointment. The Petitions were filed inter-alia

indicating rejection of petitioners' candidature was not justified, as

they were acquitted by the criminal courts.

A response to the writ petition has been filed inter-alia

indicating that the Circular dated 04.12.2019 provided that even

in cases where there is an acquittal, a Committee to be formed

would examine each case and on coming to the conclusion and in

case where acquittal is based on giving of benefit of

doubt/compromise, after examining the matter thoroughly, the

decision is to be taken for according appointment. Based on

which, the cases of petitioners were examined by the Committee

(3 of 6) [CW-5783/2022 & 5766/2022]

and the Committee has come to the conclusion that the petitioners

aren't entitled for appointment.

Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions with

reference to the judgments of the concerned criminal court by

indicating that either they were not involved in the crime and that

based on the judgment in question, it couldn't be said that despite

acquittal, the petitioners were not entitled for appointment.

Submissions were also made that the decision taken by the

Committee is omnibus, wherein, merely on account of the fact

that the petitioners were given benefit of doubt, their candidatures

have been rejected, which is not justified, as they were required

to look into the judgment and/or further material and, therefore,

the orders impugned deserve to be set aside.

Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the

respondents made submissions that under the Circular, the

respondents are entitled to come to a conclusion that despite

acquittal the petitioners are not entitled for appointment. The

Committee has looked into the aspect and has come to a categoric

conclusion, based on the nature of offence in which the petitioners

have faced trial and the fact that the recruitment is for the post of

Teacher Grade-III, who would be teaching the students of primary

classes and therefore, on that count, the orders impugned have

been passed, which do not call for any interference.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for

the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The requisite provision dealing with the subject-matter in the

Circular dated 04.12.2019 (Annex.R/3) reads as under: -

"nks"keqfDr ds ekeyksa esa] foHkkx esa bl laca/k esa xfBr lfefr ftlesa ,d iqfyl vf/kdkjh Hkh lnL; gksxk] vH;FkhZ ds

(4 of 6) [CW-5783/2022 & 5766/2022]

iwoZo`r (antecedents), vkjksiksa dh xgurk ,oa nks"keqfDr dk vk/kkj] vFkkZr D;k nks"keqfDr lEekutud :i ls iznku dh xbZ gS vFkok lansg ds [email protected]>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij iznku dh xbZ gS] vkfn dk leqfpr ijh{k.k dj] vH;FkhZ dks fu;qfDr nsus ds laca/k esa fu.kZ; ysxhA"

The Committee appointed by the respondents has in both the

cases passed similar order/s, which reads as under: -

[Consideration qua Petitioner- Manju Kanwar]

"ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vH;FkhZ dks lansg dk ykHk nsdj nks"keqDr fd;k x;k gSA izdj.k ij lfefr }kjk vkjksiksa ls lEcfU/kr leLr igyqvks dk voyksdu fd;k x;k rFkk vkjksiksa dh xEHkhjrk ij fopkj foe'kZ fd;k x;kA pwafd jkT; ds fo+|ky; ckyd&ckfydkvksa ds lEiw.kZ ,oa larqfyr O;fDrRo rFkk leqfpr pfj= fuekZ.k djus okyh dk;Z 'kkykvksa ds :i esa lekt }kjk izfr"Bk izkIr gS rFkk vfHkHkkodx.k v/;kidksa ij Hkjkslk djrs gS vkSj mEehn j[krs gS fd muds ikY; ckyd vkSj ckfydk,¡ u dsoy ns'k ds lqugjh Hkfo"; dk fuekZ.k djsaxs cfYd pfj=oku v/;kidksa ds laj{k.k esa lqjf{kr Hkh jgsaxsA ,sls esa vH;FkhZ ij yxk;s x;s xEHkhj izd`fr ds bYtkekr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vH;FkhZ dks v/;kid ds in dh xfjek ds izfrdwy ik;k x;k] fygktk v/;kid in ds fy, vH;FkhZ dh nkosnkjh dks loZlEefr ls [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA"

[Consideration qua Petitioner- Govind Singh Chundawat]

"ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vH;FkhZ dks nks"keqDr fd;k x;k gSA izdj.k ij lfefr }kjk vkjksiksa ls lEcfU/kr leLr igyqvks dk voyksdu fd;k x;k rFkk vkjksiksa dh xEHkhjrk ij fopkj foe'kZ fd;k x;kA pwafd jkT; ds fo+|ky; ckyd&ckfydkvksa ds lEiw.kZ ,oa larqfyr O;fDrRo rFkk leqfpr pfj= fuekZ.k djus okyh dk;Z 'kkykvksa ds :i esa lekt }kjk izfr"Bk izkIr gS rFkk vfHkHkkodx.k v/;kidksa ij Hkjkslk djrs gS vkSj mEehn j[krs gS fd muds ikY; ckyd vkSj ckfydk,¡ u dsoy ns'k ds lqugjh Hkfo"; dk fuekZ.k djsaxs cfYd pfj=oku v/;kidksa ds laj{k.k esa lqjf{kr Hkh jgsaxsA ,sls esa vH;FkhZ ij yxk;s x;s xEHkhj izd`fr ds bYtkekr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vH;FkhZ dks v/;kid ds in dh

(5 of 6) [CW-5783/2022 & 5766/2022]

xfjek ds izfrdwy ik;k x;k] fygktk v/;kid in ds fy, vH;FkhZ dh nkosnkjh dks loZlEefr ls [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA "

A perusal of the above would reveal that though the

respondents have provided for cases to be examined by the

Committee and the Committee purports to have examined the

cases; the Committee apparently has based on the fact that the

allegations against the petitioners pertain to serious/heinous

offence(s) and they were given benefit of doubt, after indicating

the philosophy for not permitting such candidates, has passed the

order. However, the order does not indicate as to whether they

have looked at the facts of the case, inasmuch as in the case of

Govind Singh Chundawat (Petitioner in CWP No.5766/2022), there

was no specific allegation against the petitioner pertaining to the

offence alleged against him and ultimately all the accused have

been acquitted by the Children Court. Further, the respondents

have ignored sub-Clause (4) of the same Circular, providing that

the cases where the candidates have been found guilty and under

the Act of 2005 and they have been given benefit of Section 24 (i)

of the Act, would be eligible. Once the Circular itself provides that

even in the case of conviction, wherein benefit of Section 24 of the

Act has been extended, the candidate would be eligible, the fact

that petitioner- Govind Singh Chundawat was acquitted, under no

circumstances, he could be held ineligible by the respondents.

However, apparently as already indicated herein before, the

respondents have in an omnibus manner by referring to the

allegations, sections involved, have passed the orders cancelling

the candidature of the petitioners/rejecting their case. The said

approach of the Committee cannot be sustained.

(6 of 6) [CW-5783/2022 & 5766/2022]

Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed. The orders

impugned passed by the respondents cancelling the candidature of

the petitioners are quashed and set aside. The matters are

remanded back to the Committee constituted under the Circular

dated 04.12.2019. It would be required of the Committee to

deliberate on the issue based on the Circular thoroughly and pass

appropriate speaking order with regard to eligibility of the

candidatures on account of their acquittal in the criminal cases,

keeping in view the observations made herein before. Needful may

be done by the Committee within a period of two weeks. It is

made clear that based on the decision taken by the Committee,

the petitioners, if found entitled for appointment, they would be

entitled to all consequential benefits.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 61 & 62-DJ/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)