[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh Kumar Meena vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:53961) on 15 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:53961]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21829/2025
Suresh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ramdev Meena, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Village Bada Naya Gaon, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Ayurved & Indian Medicine Department, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Ayurved, Yoga & Naturopathy Medicine,
Unani, Siddha And Homeopathy (AYUSH) Department,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. The Director, Ayurved Department, Ashok Marg, Lohagal
Road, Savitri College Circle, Ajmer.
5. The Medical Officer In-Charge, Govt. Ayurved Hospital,
Barath Ka Gaon, Pokhran, District Jaisalmer.
6. The Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yashpal Khileree
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
15/12/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order
dated 26.09.2025 (Annex.18) whereunder the petitioner's request
for consideration of his appointment to the post of
Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade was rejected on the ground that
a criminal case is pending against him.
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 04:42:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53961] (2 of 5) [CW-21829/2025]
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that the mere pendency of a criminal case does not
disqualify the petitioner from being appointed to the post for
which he was selected and that the disqualification was done
basing on the circular dated 04.12.2019 (Annex.19).
3. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by considering the said
circular and the aspect of disqualification on the ground of
pendency of a criminal case, has passed the order dated
27.11.2024 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13198/2024 : Amrit
Pal Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. The relevant paragraphs of
the order dated 27.11.2024 (supra) read as under:
"7. Prima facie, having seen the impugned order dated
08.03.2024 which is being termed as a speaking order, it
is anything but speaking. It does not clarify as to how the
nature of pending criminal trial in any manner impeached
the duties to be performed by the petitioner and/or how
does it amount to a moral turpitude without there being
any finding of facts and or criminal culpability. At best,
the petitioner is merely an under trial and his fate is yet
to be governed depending on the outcome of the trial.
Furthermore, possibility of a compromise between
husband and wife cannot be ruled out at subsequent
stage. Be that as it may, mere break down of a marriage
cannot be treated as if the husband is the sole erring
party just because his wife has chosen to press criminal
charges against him, which are yet to be proved.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also rightly relies
on a co-ordinate Bench judgment rendered in Mukesh
Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., wherein, it was held
that on account of pendency of criminal case the
petitioner cannot be denied appointment. In the case of
Mukesh Kumar (supra), the coordinate bench of this court
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 04:42:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53961] (3 of 5) [CW-21829/2025]
after considering various aspects of the matter laid down
as under:-
"15. Viewed in light of the above factual
scenario, it is evident that the Rules not post
any hurdle against the petitioner's right to be
appointed in the police services. At best, a
rider can be imposed in the petitioner's
appointment order that in the event of
conviction in the above criminal case, he may
be liable to be terminated from service without
holding (5 of 6) any enquiry and an
undertaking in this regard can be procured
from him in this regard.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the
writ petition deserves to be and is hereby
allowed. The respondents are directed to offer
appointment to the petitioner on the post of
Sub Inspector of Police in the questioned
selection process ignoring the pendency of the
above criminal case against the petitioner.
However, the appointment order shall bear a
condition that the petitioner's services may be
terminated in the event of his conviction and
he shall also submit an undertaking to this
effect before joining to the post. Since the
petitioner was gainfully employed as a Teacher
during the intervening period, he is not
entitled to any consequential benefits.
However, the respondents shall grant him all
notional services benefits from the date of the
order Annex.6 dated 22.12.2009."
9. I am in respectful agreement with the views
expressed in the judgment ibid and see no reason why
the benefits thereof be not given to the petitioner.
10. I am unable to convince myself with the insipidity of
the argument adopted by the learned counsel for
respondents that since the charge-sheet has been filed,
therefore, petitioner does not deserve to be appointed.
Despite allegations under IPC Sections 498A, 406, 323,
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 04:42:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53961] (4 of 5) [CW-21829/2025]
and 494, the petitioner is presumed innocent until proven
guilty. The circular dated 04.12.2019 and the impugned
order unjustly bar his appointment based solely on
pending criminal charges. The action of respondents
infringes upon the petitioner's rights under Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution, denying equal treatment and
personal liberty without a fair trial. Moreover, failure to
apply the Supreme Court's guidelines in Avtar Singh
(Supra) regarding pending criminal cases indicates
nothing else but a flawed decision-making on the part of
the respondents.
11. The impugned order (08.03.2024) and committee
report (01.03.2024) rejecting the petitioner's candidature
for the Lower Division Clerk post are thus arbitrary,
unreasonable, and lack proper consideration,
necessitating judicial intervention herein to quash the
same. It is accordingly so ordered. Pertinently, at the
time of the job advertisement, no trial proceedings were
pending. The respondent's delay deprived the petitioner
of a rightful appointment. In any case, pending criminal
trial, unless of course proven guilty by way of conviction,
cannot bar appointments.
12. For the reasons recorded in the preceding part of
the order, the petition is allowed. By way of interim order
dated 09.10.2015 one post was directed to be kept
vacant for the petitioner in the selection process. The
respondents are directed to issue appointment letter to
the petitioner, upon his approaching them with web print
of instant order, within a period of 30 days thereof, which
shall be subject to the final outcome of the pending
criminal trial. The petitioner shall also give an
undertaking that in case, he is convicted in the criminal
trial, he shall not claim any equity on the basis of the
instant order."
4. On going through the impugned order of rejection dated
26.09.2025 (Annex.18), except for the circular dated 04.12.2019
(Annex.19), no valid reasons have been given as enunciated by
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 04:42:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53961] (5 of 5) [CW-21829/2025]
this Court in the case of Amrit Pal (supra). Therefore, the present
impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
5. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed and the
impugned order of rejection dated 26.09.2025 (Annex.18)
is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed
to issue the appointment order to the petitioner within a
period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order,
subject to the petitioner's undertaking that his services
would be terminated in the event of any conviction in the
pending criminal case.
6. The petitioner is also entitled to all other benefits except
financial benefits, as other persons who were appointed under the
same recruitment.
7. All pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
143s-PoonamS/-
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 04:42:49 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
