Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rahul Khatri vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:9345) on 13 February, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:9345]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5046/2022
Rahul Khatri S/o Shri Krishan Kumar Khatri, Aged About 35
Years, R/o In Front Of Nagar Nigam Bhandar, Street No. 1,
Kamla Colony, Near Power House Circle, Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department
Of Personnel (K-4/2) Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora
Mr. Hardik Gautam
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore - AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
13/02/2025
1. The petitioner herein seeks issuance of an appropriate writ,
order and/or direction to the respondents to consider his
candidature for appointment on the post of Cooperative Inspector
pursuant to the selection result dated 13.07.2021 (Annexure-6)
pursuant to the advertisement dated 02.04.2018. Claim is that
despite being otherwise meritorious and eligible, he has been
unfairly denied appointment due to pending criminal proceedings
arising out of matrimonial dispute between him and his estranged
wife. Criminal proceedings were instituted at her instance. Less
meritorious candidates have been appointed as per the order
dated 24.12.2021.
[2025:RJ-JD:9345] (2 of 6) [CW-5046/2022]
2. The facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner
had got married with Dr. Ruchika Gupta on 26.02.2020, but their
relationship could not remain cordial. Their differences led to filing
an FIR No. 67/2020 by his wife at Mahila Thana Police Station,
Bhopal, for alleged offences under Sections 498A & 506/34 IPC
and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2.1. Meanwhile, the petitioner participated in the selection
process and was successful on the post in question. Subsequently,
he was required to give his options for postings and other details,
for which he submitted his prescribed form on 07.09.2020. In this
form (Annexure-1), there was no column to give any detail
declaring anything about pendency of criminal case against the
candidate. In the said FIR challan was also filed by the police on
28.12.2020, but the trial had yet not commenced.
2.2. However, when he was called for an interview on
30.06.2021, an attestation form was to be filled up for verification
by the Police Department. In the attestation form there was a
column No.12 with regard to furnishing information as to whether
the candidate was ever convicted by any Court. Since the
petitioner was not convicted, he left the column No.12 blank in the
attestation form.
2.3. The RPSC declared the final result on 13.07.2021, in which
the petitioner stood at merit No. 534. Notwithstanding, vide an
order dated 24.12.2021, based on recommendations of the RPSC,
in list of appointees' name of petitioner was missing. Less
meritorious candidates than the petitioner were given
appointment. The petitioner approached the respondents by filing
[2025:RJ-JD:9345] (3 of 6) [CW-5046/2022]
representations. It was then that he came to know that due to
lodging of an FIR against him by his estranged wife, appointment
has not been given. Hence, this petition.
3. The stand taken by the respondents is that in the attestation
form neither the petitioner denied being convicted nor the
petitioner stated the details of pending criminal case. It is
submitted that Point No.1(vii) of the Circular dated 04.12.2019
issued by the Department of Personnel with regard to character
verification of candidates clearly stated that any candidate against
whom a criminal case under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code is
pending investigation/under trial, he/she will not be entitled for
appointment.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for
the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and
have gone through the case file.
5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that neither the charges have been framed nor the petitioner has
been convicted in that FIR. He further submits that petitioner has
not concealed any fact regarding having any criminal case pending
against him because it is for the first time that an information was
sought by the Commission regarding conviction of a candidate in
any criminal case and since there was no conviction against the
petitioner, he left the column blank in the attestation form.
5.1. Learned 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
1 2016 (3) WLC 345
[2025:RJ-JD:9345] (4 of 6) [CW-5046/2022]
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 also reaffirmed and
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 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
[2025:RJ-JD:9345] (5 of 6) [CW-5046/2022]
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. Having heard and perused the record, I am of the opinion
that being a matrimonial dispute, same does not in any manner
impinge on the nature of duties to be performed by the petitioner.
It does not even 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.
8. I see no reason why the benefits of judgment ibid be not
given to the petitioner.
9. The action of respondents infringes upon the petitioner's
fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
i.e. denying equal treatment and personal liberty without a fair
trial. Pertinently, at the time of the job advertisement, no FIR or
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.
10. Resultantly, for the reasons recorded in the preceding part of
the order, the petition is allowed. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:9345] (6 of 6) [CW-5046/2022]
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.
11. Petitioner in case is meted out with the favourable
treatment, he shall be entitled to notional benefits and seniority
with effect from 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'. His appointment shall be subject to outcome of the pending
trial against him. 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.
13. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
119-AK Chouhan/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
