Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh Meena vs State Institute Of Health And Family ... on 5 February, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:7356]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3137/2025
Dinesh Meena S/o Shri Vimal Prakash Meena, Aged About 35
Years, Resident Of Village Post Biluda Tehsil Sabla Dungarpur
Rajasthan 314022
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare (Sihfw),
Through Its Director, Jhalana Doongi Colony, Ghat Ki
Guni, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302004
2. Joint Director, Medical And Health Services , Zone
Udaipur
3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Barmer
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripudaman Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanuj Jain on behalf of
Mr. Mukesh Dave - AGC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
05/02/2025
1. The petitioner herein is before this Court seeking issuance of
an appropriate writ or direction commanding the respondents to
permit the petitioner to join at CHC Amershah Bamnor Dhanua,
Barmer pursuant to the order dated 09.01.2025.
2. The respondents advertised 6981 posts of Nursing Officer
vide an advertisement dated 05.05.2023. The petitioner having
experience of over three years as a staff Nurse, applied for the
same in the ST-Male category. Since the application form did not
include an option to disclose the pendency of any criminal case,
the petitioner while submitting the form on 20.06.2023, did not
mention the registration of the FIR. The petitioner's documents
were verified, and a police verification report dated 13.01.2025
(for the period from April, 1990 to December, 2024) was
[2025:RJ-JD:7356] (2 of 3) [CW-3137/2025]
submitted stating that an FIR No.95/2019 under Sections 153AA &
295A IPC was registered in the year 2019. Though, vide an order
dated 09.01.2025, the petitioner tried to join at CHC Amershah
Bamnor Dhanua Barmer, but the CMHO Barmer did not permit the
petitioner to join his duties due to the pending criminal case.
Hence, this petition.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard rival contentions
made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
4. It appears that the petitioner is not being allowed to join
merely on the ground that he is an under trial in an FIR
No.95/2019 registered under Sections 153AA & 295A IPC. Charge-
sheet dated 24.08.2021 has been filed and trial is pending.
5. In this context, reference may be had to a judgment dated
30.01.2024 rendered by me in some what similar circumstances in
the case titled Patram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP
No. 18747/2019. The observations and the ratio as enunciated
therein being apposite is reproduced hereinbelow:
"6. Turning to the petitioner's case on its merits, it is acknowledged,
as per the respondents' submitted response, that the petitioner did
not withhold any information regarding the FIR against him. Before
joining his duties, he voluntarily disclosed the existence of FIR
No.309/2019, registered at Police Station Anoopgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar, under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 354 of IPC, initiated
by his estranged wife due to marital discord. Furthermore, the
criminal trial stemming from this FIR has concluded with the
petitioner's acquittal.
7. The only opposition at this stage for not allowing the petition
is reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the
Apex Court judgment rendered in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India &
Ors., reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471.
8. Having perused the judgment, ibid, what has to be borne in mind is
that candidates must truthfully disclose information regarding
convictions, acquittals, arrests, or pending criminal cases to their
employers, both before and after employment, without suppression or
false statements. Employers, when terminating services or canceling
[2025:RJ-JD:7356] (3 of 3) [CW-3137/2025]
candidatures due to false information, should consider special
circumstances and relevant government regulations. Additionally,
appropriate actions should be taken if there is suppression or false
information regarding involvement in a criminal case, depending on
its nature. The accuracy and specificity of attestation/verification
forms are crucial, and guilt for suppression or false suggestion
requires attributable knowledge. Employers, no doubt, can maintain
their discretion in considering disclosed information and are not
obligated to appoint candidates even if truthful disclosures are
made, particularly in cases involving multiple pending cases or
serious criminal offenses.
9. In the instant case there is no allegation of suppression or
concealment on the part of petitioner. Even the offences, at the
relevant time when he was embroiled in, did not in any manner
impinge on the nature of duties which are/were to be performed by
the petitioner. Be that as it may, he in any case stands acquitted and
has vindicated himself.
10. As an upshot of my discussion, as above, there is no justification
for denying the petitioner appointment on the post he has been
selected for."
6. In view of the aforesaid, it turns out that the case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by paras 8 and 9 of the judgment
ibid. I see no reason why the benefit thereof be not given to the
petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed subject to the petitioner
giving an undertaking on an affidavit that he shall not claim any
special equity by virtue of his having joined on the post in
question in case of his conviction in the pending criminal trial.
8. It is, however, made clear that this order is not to be
construed in any manner to mean that in case petitioner is
otherwise not entitled or eligible to be appointed, he shall be
allowed to join the service.
9. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
50-AK Chouhan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
