Ranjeet Bairwa Son Of Shri Babulal ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 356 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 410/2023

Ranjeet Bairwa Son of Shri Babulal Bariwa, aged about 22 Years,
Resident of Village Kanwarpura, Tehsil Niwaria, District Tonk
(Rajasthan)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.      State of Rajasthan, through The Additional Chief
        Secretary, Department of Home, Government Secretariat,
        Jaipur.
2.      The Inspector General (Recruitment), Police Headquarter,
        Lal Kothi, Jaipur.
3.      The Superintendent of Police, Udaipur.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

11/01/2023 This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order

dated 7-10-2022 (Annexure-7) whereby the claim of

petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable pursuant

to advertisement dated 25-5-2018 has been denied.

2. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner

was acquitted from charges of offences under Sections 363,

376 and 366 IPC and ¾ of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) vide judgment dated 24-2-

2022, still respondents have not considered the candidature

of petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable and

(2 of 3) [CW-410/2023]

vide impugned order dated 7-10-2022 the appointment has

been declined.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the

material available on record.

4. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the

petitioner's candidature for appointment to the post

Constable has been declined on the ground that the acquittal

of petitioner from charges of Section 363, 366 and 376 IPC

and Section ¾ of the POCSO Act is not a clear acquittal but

the same was while extending benefit of doubt because

witnesses of the criminal case have not supported the

prosecution case and were declared hostile. The respondent

authorities have also considered the fact that the offence was

proved by the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. In

such circumstances, since the acquittal of petitioner was not

clear and was by extending benefit of doubt the claim of

petitioner was not found in accordance with Rule 13(2) of the

Rajasthan Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 and the petitioner

has not been found fit for appointment to the post of

Constable. Further, since the acquittal of petitioner was not

clear and by extending benefit of doubt, the claim of

petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable was also

found not suitable in accordance with Point No.1(IX) of

Circular dated 4-12-2019 and the candidature of petitioner

has been declined.

(3 of 3) [CW-410/2023]

5. In such circumstances this court is of the view that there

is no illegality in the impugned order dated 7-10-2022 and

the same is a well considered and reasoned order requiring

no interference by this court in exercise of its extraordinary

equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. The petitioner has no case for appointment to the post

of Constable. There is no force in the writ petition and the

same is hereby dismissed. No costs.

6. Stay application, and other pending application(s), if

any, also stands disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

Arn/18

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)