Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Raj Kumar on 25 May, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
(1 of 3) [SAW-364/2022]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 364/2022
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director General of Police, Rajasthan Police Headquarters,
Jaipur.
3. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Rajasthan
Police Headquarters, Jaipur.
4. Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner
5. Superintendent of Police, Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
Raj Kumar, Aged About 41 Years, Resident of Biran, Tehsil
Rajgarh, District Churu.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Manish Vyas, AAG.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vikas Bijarnia.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
JUDGMENT
25/05/2022
The instant intra-court appeal has been preferred by the
State of Rajasthan for assailing the judgment/final order dated
15.12.2021, whereby writ petition preferred by the respondent
writ petitioner Shri Raj Kumar was accepted and the order dated
9.7.2021 whereby, he was declared ineligible for appointment on
the post of Constable was quashed.
The respondent writ petitioner applied for the post of
Constable in the Ex-serviceman category pursuant to the
(2 of 3) [SAW-364/2022]
advertisement dated 4.12.2019. He cleared the written
examination and the physical efficiency test and was selected.
During character verification, the petitioner indicated that an F.I.R.
had been lodged against him at the GRP Police Station Hisar in the
year 2011 (under the Punjab Exscise Act), wherein he was visited
with fine of Rs.100/-. Based on this disclosure, the appellants
herein rejected the candidature of the writ petitioner vide order
dated 9.7.2021 based on amended Rule 13(2)(c) introduced vide
notification dated 2.3.2020.
Rule 13(2)(c) of the notification stipulates that a candidate
found indulged in human trafficking, trafficking of excisable
articles or narcotics substances, shall not be considered for
appointment.
A perusal of the documents placed on record, to be precise
the F.I.R. No.1/2011 registered against the petitioner, indicates
that the petitioner was apprehended while consuming liquor. Thus,
by no stretch of imagination, was he indulging in trafficking
excisable articles.
Learned Single Bench gave due consideration to the factual
and legal scenario and held that the notification dated 2.3.2020
did not have retrospective application and even if it was applied,
the respondent writ petitioner was not suffering any
disqualification from being appointed as a Constable in the subject
recruitment process.
We are thus of the firm view that the impugned order dated
15.12.2021 whereby the decision of the appellants herein
declaring the writ petitioner ineligible for appointment on the post
of Constable was quashed and set aside, does not suffer from any
(3 of 3) [SAW-364/2022]
infirmity, illegality or perversity whatsoever warranting
interference therein.
The intra-court appeal lacks merit and is dismissed as such.
No order as to costs.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
/tarun goyal/ 69
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
