Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr. Amarjot vs Union Of India (2025:Rj-Jd:8277) on 10 February, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:8277]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12548/2022
Dr. Amarjot S/o Shri Bhawarlal Nain, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Gayatri Nagar, Mora Road, Merta City, District Nagaur
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Home Secretary, Ministry Of
Home Affairs, Government Of India, New Delhi.
2. Medical Officer Selection Board (Capfs), Through Dig,
Directorate General, Indo Tibetan Border Police Force
(Recruitment Branch), Government Of India, Ministry Of
Home Affairs Block 2 Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road New
Delhi.
3. Commandant Recruitment, Indo Tibetan Border Police
Force, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Block 2 Cgo Complex,
Lodhi Road New Delhi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Abhilasha Bora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit
Mr. D.S. Pidiyar for
Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
10/02/2025
1. The petitioner herein seeks issuance of an appropriate writ,
order and/or direction commanding the respondents to consider
the candidature of the petitioner on the post of Medical Officers,
(Assistant Commandant) which was withheld due to pending
criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial dispute between
him and his estranged wife, instituted at her instance, which were
subsequently dropped due to compromise between two of them.
[2025:RJ-JD:8277] (2 of 5) [CW-12548/2022]
2. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication are that the
respondents have issued an advertisement for the posts of Super
Specialist Medical Officer (Second-in-command), Specialist Medical
Officer (Deputy Commandant), Medical Officer (Assistant
Commandant), and Dental Surgeon (Assistant Commandant) in
the Central Armed Police Forces (BSF, CRPF, ITBP, SSB, Assam
Rifles), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
2.1. The minimum qualification for the Medical Officer post
requires a recognized medical qualification in Allopathic Medicine
as per the Indian Medical Councils Act, 1956, along with
permanent registration from any State Medical Council.
2.2. The petitioner, being eligible, applied online under the
Economic Weaker Sections category and specified preferences for
various Para-Military Forces.
2.3. During the interview, the petitioner was asked to submit an
attestation form disclosing any pending criminal cases. The
petitioner disclosed that an FIR No.0084, dated 07.08.2020 was
registered against him by his wife under Sections 498A, 406, and
354 IPC at Mahila Thana, Udaipur.
2.4. On 26.07.2022, the petitioner received an email stating that
a decision regarding his candidature would be made only after the
outcome of the pending criminal case. Hence, this petition.
3. The stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner
was only selected provisionally and due to pendency of criminal
case, his candidate has been kept in abeyance.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for
the petitioner and perused the case file.
[2025:RJ-JD:8277] (3 of 5) [CW-12548/2022]
5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the dispute between the petitioner and his wife has been
amicably settled and thus, he is entitled to get appointment on the
post of Medical Officers (Assistant Commandant). In support
thereof, counsel relies on a co-ordinate Bench judgment rendered
in Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.1, 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 co-ordinate bench of this Court 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 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."
6. The above judgment was subsequently followed in Amrit
Pal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.13198/2024, decided on 27.11.2024, wherein the alleged
1 2016 (3) WLC 345
[2025:RJ-JD:8277] (4 of 5) [CW-12548/2022]
offences also arose from matrimonial dispute, relevant of which is
reproduced hereinvelow:-
"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, 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."
7. The case of the petitioner herein is in fact on a better footing
as no undertaking and/or affidavit is required from him since the
matter stands settled amicably between the parties and in any
case being a matrimonial dispute the same does not in any
manner impinge on the nature of duties to be performed by the
petitioner.
8. Since in the reply a candidate stand has been taken that
merit and eligibility of the petitioner shall be determined only after
decision of the instant writ petition, the respondents are directed
to do the needful within a period of 30 days from the date
petitioner approaches the competent authority of the respondents
with a web print of the instant order and in case the petitioner is
found otherwise meritorious and eligible, benefit of his
performance be given to him on parity with his counterparts, with
whom, he had competed pursuant to the same advertisement.
Petitioner in case is meted out with the favourable treatment, he
shall be entitled to notional benefits and seniority with effect from
[2025:RJ-JD:8277] (5 of 5) [CW-12548/2022]
the same date as his other counterparts were appointed, but for
the period he remained out of service, no financial benefits shall
be accorded on the principle of 'no work no pay'.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
218-AK Chouhan/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
