Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vishnu Singh Rawat vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:8973) on 13 February, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:8973]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17003/2021
Vishnu Singh Rawat S/o Shri Virad Singh, Aged About 24 Years,
Byecaste Rawat, R/o V.p.o. Bartu Bhim, District Rajsamand
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
3. Inspector General Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarter, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
4. Superintendent Of Police, District Rajsamand
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Godara.
Mr. Sudhir Saruparia.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajpal Singh Bhati for
Mr. Ritu Raj Singh.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
13/02/2025
1. The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks the quashing of an
order dated 23.11.2021 (Annex.-5), vide which he was deemed
ineligible for appointment, and requests his appointment to the
position of Constable in accordance with the advertisement dated
25.05.2018.
2. Brief facts first. A criminal case against the petitioner was
resolved in his favor on 16.01.2018. Subsequent thereto, the
respondents issued a notification/advertiement on 25.05.2018,
[2025:RJ-JD:8973] (2 of 5) [CW-17003/2021]
inviting applications for various posts, including the position of
Constable (General), for which the petitioner, being fully eligible,
applied on 06.06.2018. After successfully clearing all stages of
examination, he was selected and assigned to the Rajsamand
district for appointment. Meanwhile, on 02.03.2020, a notification
was issued outlining disqualification criteria, including cases
resolved through compromise (Rajinama). As part of the
appointment process, the petitioner was asked to undergo
character certificate verification through the SHO of Bhim via a
letter dated 15.06.2021, which he duly completed within the
stipulated time. However, despite fulfilling all the necessary
requirements, he received a. order/letter dated 23.11.2021,
assailed herein, declaring him ineligible for appointment due to
the prior resolution of a criminal case through compromise, even
though the case had been settled in his favor years earlier.
Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the instant petition.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
and perused the case file.
4. As regards the factual assertion of the respondents, the
following pointed stand has been taken in para 2 & 6 of the reply,
which are reproduced herein below :-
"2. That the averments contained in para No.2 of the writ
petition are admitted to the extent they are in consonance with the
advertisement dated 25.05.2018, An.1. However, thereafter a
short amendment was also issued in regard to number of posts in
District Rajsamand and in all 139 posts were advertised. The
petitioner in pursuance of the said advertisement applied online
but very strangely despite of having the full knowledge that a FIR
is registered against him he did not mention about the same in the
application for while mentioned the word 'No', which is apparent
from the application of the petitioner. Thus a deliberate and
intentional act of concealment / suppression was made by the
petitioner which in itself disentitles him to get any relief from this
Hon'ble Court.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
[2025:RJ-JD:8973] (3 of 5) [CW-17003/2021]
6. That though a suitable reply to the averments contained in
para No.6 of the writ petition has already been submitted in
paras No.3 and 4 of the reply hereinabove, but it is again
reiterated at the cost of repetition that learned Trial Court
acquitted the petitioner u/s 143, 324/149 while extending the
benefit of doubt on account of absence of sufficient evidence,
which legally speaking in no manner can be said to be an
'honourable acquittal' and further acquitted him for the offence
u/s 341, 323/149 IPC in the light of the compromise entered into
between the parties which also cannot be said to be 'honourable
acquittal'. However, the departmental committee after carefully
examining the case of the petitioner and while placing reliance
on Point No.02 of the notification dated 02.03.2020 did not find
the petitioner eligible for appointment on the post of Constable,
which is perfectly just, legal and in consonance with law and
deserves to be maintained by this Hon'ble Court."
5. The alleged concealment of non-disclosure of the criminal
case seems to have weighed in the mind of the respondents while
rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. However, what they
were unmindful of was the fact that as on the cut-off date of filling
up the application form i.e. 14.06.2018, petitioner had already
been exonerated by the trial Court and he stood acquitted,
though, no doubt, due to a compromise.
6. A citizen, who is acquitted of the criminal trial, has all the
right to consider himself as a free citizen of the country and is not
to treat himself either as an under trial or as a suspect or convict
in any manner and therefore, he rightly opted for option 'No' while
filling up the form.
7. Even otherwise, the petitioner has been acquitted of all
charges by a competent court of law. Trite it may sound, but on
the principle of presumption of innocence, an acquittal restores
the petitioner's status as a law-abiding citizen. The respondents'
stand that the acquittal was not "honorable" is merely speculative.
The acquittal remains valid unless set aside in appeal. No such
appeal against acquittal was filed by the State. Denying the
petitioner an appointment solely due to an FIR/trial, in which he
[2025:RJ-JD:8973] (4 of 5) [CW-17003/2021]
has been acquitted by the competent Court, amounts to punishing
him by the respondent/prospective employers.
7.2 An individual acquitted after trial cannot be stigmatized for
having been part of a criminal trial in past. Moreover, denying an
employment opportunity to an accused who is acquitted is against
the principle of reintegration of such individuals into society. Being
so, I see no reason on what grounds the respondents are pleading
that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit of the acquittal.
8. In this context, I have had an occasion to render a judgment
in case titled Rajendra Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.15957/2021. Relevant thereof are paras 12
to 20 which are not being reproduced for sake of brevity.
9. Same view was taken by me in Shankar Lal vs. State of
Rajasthan and other SB Civil Writ Petition No. 756/2022 decided
on 18.11.2024.
10. As an upshot, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are
directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner on the post
in question by determining his eligibility and merit, subject to
availability of the post as on today.
11. Needless to say that if the petitioner is found meritorious,
then only he may be accorded the benefit of his performance. In
the event that no vacancy is currently available, he will be
considered for the position as soon as the next vacancy arises.
12. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be accorded all the
notional benefits including seniority with effect from the same
date his counterparts were appointed pursuant to the selection
process wherein petition also competed along with them. However,
[2025:RJ-JD:8973] (5 of 5) [CW-17003/2021]
for the period he remained out of service, he shall not be entitled
to any financial benefits on the principal of 'No Work No Pay'.
13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
118-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-
Whether fit for reporting: Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
