Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ghanshyam vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 9 October, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:41530-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 775/2024
Ghanshyam S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village
Post Inana, Tehsil Mundwa, District Nagaur (Rajasthan).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, School
Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary
Education, Dholpur.
4. The Panchayat Elementary Education Officer (P.e.e.o.),
Government Senior Secondary School, Mraina, District
Dholpur.
5. The Headmaster, Govt. Upper Primary School,
Chauhanpura 9486576), (08080407802), Block
Rajakhera, District Dholpur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : None Present
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
09/10/2024
Per, Kuldeep Mathur, J.
The instant intra-Court appeal is time barred by 164 days.
However, having regard to a contentious issue raised by the
appellant, the delay in filing this Special Appeal is condoned. I.A.
No.01/2024 is allowed.
2. The appellant- Writ Petitioner by way of filing writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the learned
[2024:RJ-JD:41530-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-775/2024]
Single Judge of this Court laid challenge to the action of the
respondents in denying him appointment on the post of physical
training instructor (PTI) Grade- III pursuant to recruitment
notification dated 04.05.2018.
3. The record of the case indicates that the appellant was
denied appointment in the respondent department solely on the
count that he was involved in multiple criminal cases. The details
of the criminal cases registered against the appellant are as
under:-
S.No. FIR No./Year Police Thana/District/State Act Section Present Status Remarks
1 301/2014 KOTWALI/NAGAUR/ 308(IPC 1860), Pending Trial
RAJASTHAN 143(IPC 1860),
323(IPC 1860),
341(IPC 1860)
2 268/2003 KOTWALI/NAGAUR/ 323(IPC 1860), Acquitted nks'keqd~r lu~nsg
RAJASTHAN 341(IPC 1860)
dk ykHk fnukad
18&05&2006
3 53/2004 MOONDWA/NAGAUR/ 34(IPC 1860), Acquitted jkthukek cjh
RAJASTHAN 323(IPC 1860),
341(IPC 1860)
fnukad
06&10&2005
4 337/2004 KOTWALI/NAGAUR/ 336(IPC 1860), Acquitted jkthukek fnukad
RAJASTHAN 452(IPC 1860),
427(IPC 1860),
28&03&2007
143(IPC 1860),
323(IPC 1860)
5 292/2005 KOTWALI/NAGAUR/ 143(IPC 1860), Acquitted jkthukek fnukad
RAJASTHAN 325(IPC 1860),
323(IPC 1860),
21&06&2006
341(IPC 1860)
4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner had
been charged for serious offences and presently he is facing trial
for the offences punishable under Sections 308, 143, 323 & 341
IPC. Thus, merely because the petitioner has been acquitted by
the competent criminal court in few of the cases lodged against
him involving moral turpitude by extending him benefit of doubt, it
would not automatically make him entitled for the employment in
the respondent department. It is a settled position of law that if
the employer after judicious exercise of his discretion and after
[2024:RJ-JD:41530-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-775/2024]
taking into consideration the judgments passed by the competent
criminal court reaches to a conclusion that candidate is acquitted
in the criminal cases lodged against him on the basis of being
extended benefit of doubt, can declare him unsuitable for
appointment on the said post (refer, 'Jodginder Singh v. Union
Territory of Chandigarh'; (2015)2 SCC 377 and 'Ramlal v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.'; (2024)1 SCC 175).
5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no interference is
warranted in the impugned order dated 04.05.2018 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court. Consequently, the present
intra-Court appeal is dismissed on account of being time barred as
well as having no merit.
6. No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J
141-himanshu/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
