Mahendra Singh Sisodiya vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 11935 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 11935 Raj
Judgement Date : 28 September, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mahendra Singh Sisodiya vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 September, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11769/2021

Mahendra Singh Sisodiya S/o Fateh Singh, Aged About 23 Years, Village Mukam Velawat Post Adwas Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. Director General Of Police, State Of Rajasthan, Police Directorate, Jaipur.

3. Inspector General Of Police, Range Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

4. Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :    Mr. Tanwar Singh.
For Respondent(s)              :    Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG
                                    Mr. Kailash Choudhary.



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                         Order

28/09/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against rejection of his candidature for the post of Constable

General pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.12.2019.

Submissions have been made that in the online application

filed by the petitioner in the column pertaining to 'Whether an FIR

has been lodged against the petitioner', the petitioner indicated

'No'.

                                          (2 of 4)                [CW-11769/2021]



     After    undertaking        written       examination       PST/PET,   the

petitioner was selected, however, during document verification

when the fact of pendency of trial against the petitioner under

Section 384 & 387 IPC came to light, by order dated 26.07.2021

(Annex.4), the petitioner has been held ineligible for appointment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that

though the petitioner mistakenly did not disclose the pendency of

the criminal trial against him, during pendency of the present writ

petition, the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges by the

competent criminal court by its judgment dated 04.09.2021 and,

therefore, the respondents be directed to consider the candidature

of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that

the petitioner has suppressed relevant information at the time of

filing of the application and in terms of the judgment in the case

of State of Rajasthan Vs. Chetan Jeff: 2022 SCC Online SC 597

and Division Bench judgment in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs.

Mahendra Singh Rathore: D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.1377/2019,

decided on 15.09.2022, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

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

The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Chetan Jeff (supra)

after referring to judgment in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran

Nigam Limited Vs. Anil Kanwariya: (2021) 10 SCC 136, which also

pertain to Police constable, came to the following conclusion:-

"At the outset, it is required to be noted that the post on which the writ petitioner is seeking the appointment is the post of constable. It cannot be disputed that the duty of the constable is to maintain law and order. Therefore, it is expected that he should

(3 of 4) [CW-11769/2021]

be honest, trustworthy and that his integrity is above board and that he is reliable. An employee in the uniformed service presupposes a higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary any act in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated. In the present case the original writ petitioner has not confirmed to the above expectations/requirements. He suppressed the material facts of his criminal antecedents. He did not disclose in the application form that against him a criminal case/FIR is pending. On the contrary, in the application form, he made a false statement that he is not facing any criminal case."

The Division Bench in the case of Mahendra Singh Rathore

(supra) after referring to the case of Chetan Jeff (supra) has come

to the following conclusion:-

"In the light of the aforesaid facts and enunciation of law by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the respondent-writ petitioner willfully suppressed the vital information regarding registration of criminal case/s against him in the relevant column of the Application Form. The Rule 13 of Rules of 1989 though allows convicts and ex-prisoners to be inducted in police service but does not cover the case of the respondent-writ petitioner, who had suppressed the material fact in respect to his criminal antecedents at the very inception of the recruitment process. Further, it is noticed that respondent-writ petitioner conveyed the fact regarding the pendency of criminal cases registered against him through representation dated 22.10.2018, after the result of written examination on realising that the non-disclosure of the same could act as an impediment to his appointment. In the considered opinion of this Court, concealment with regard to involvement in criminal case/s by the respondent-writ petitioner reflects that he was not honest in furnishing the required details sought by the employer. A candidate desirous of seeking employment in a disciplined police force is expected to carry high moral standards and the expected standard from such person is quite distinct from other services, therefore, any deliberate misstatement or omission in furnishing vital information is to be viewed seriously. In the present case, the respondent-writ petitioner has failed to meet the above standards and thus, his candidature has rightly been rejected by the appellants respondents. The impugned order dated 11.02.2019 passed by learned Single Bench is not in

(4 of 4) [CW-11769/2021]

conformity with the Supreme Court judgments referred to supra and hence cannot be sustained.

As a result of the above discussion, the instant special appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 11.02.2019 passed by learned Single Bench is hereby reversed and set aside.

In the peculiar facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."

Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner has

suppressed the information pertaining to the pendency of the

criminal case and as such, the issue as raised in the present

petition is squarely covered by law laid down in the case of Chetan

Jeff (supra), RRVPNL (supra) & Mahendra Singh Rathore (supra).