Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunil Kumar Nayak vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ... on 7 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:980]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5237/2018
Sunil Kumar Nayak S/o Shri Narayan Lal Nayak, Resident Of
Mukam Post Mugana, Tehsil Dhariyavad, District Pratapgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Superintendent Of Police, District Pratapgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Jangid
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Soni
Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
07/01/2025
1. Petitioner herein is assailing an order dated 02.04.2018
(Annex.7) passed by the Director General of Police, Jaipur, vide
which his candidature for the post of Constable Driver pursuant to
an advertisement dated 10.02.2016, was rejected.
2. Succinctly speaking, relevant facts, as pleaded in the petition
are as follows:
2.1. Vide an advertisement dated 10.02.2016 inviting applications
were invited for appointments on various posts, including
Constable Driver in Rajasthan Police. The petitioner, being eligible,
also applied for the same for District Pratapgarh in general
category. He successfully passed the written examination.
Thereafter, the petitioner was called for the physical efficiency
test. The petitioner cleared the physical efficiency test as well.
2.2. As per final select list, petitioner was declared successful for
appointment on the post of Constable Driver in the Pratapgarh
[2025:RJ-JD:980] (2 of 6) [CW-5237/2018]
District. However, despite being selected, he was not given
appointment on account of criminal case registered against him,
though he was acquitted by court vide order dated 30.09.2014
giving benefit of doubt due to lack of evidence, i.e. before
issuance of the advertisement. In this regard, the Superintendent
of Police, Pratapgarh sought instructions from the respondent
No.2.
2.3. Notwithstanding, the candidature of the petitioner was
rejected by an office order dated 02.04.2018 (Annex.7) without
even considering their own circular dated 28.03.2017 (Annex.8)
as per which, the persons who have been acquitted by giving
benefit of doubt or lack of evidence, are eligible to be appointed.
Hence, this petition.
3. The stand taken by the respondents in their reply inter alia is
that the petitioner disclosed the particulars of the criminal case
against him. Accordingly, as per para 9 of the advertisement and
Circular No. 1300 dated 28.03.2017, the matter was forwarded to
the headquarters for consideration by the department's
committee. It was decided, vide order dated 02.04.2018, that the
petitioner was not fit for appointment to the post of constable.
3.2 After trial, the learned Court below, by order dated
30.09.2014, though acquitted the petitioner, but not honorably.
Rather, he was acquitted due to lack of evidence. Therefore,
petition deserves to be dismissed as it is devoid of merit.
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. Rival arguments have been
addressed on the lines of the respective pleadings of the parties.
[2025:RJ-JD:980] (3 of 6) [CW-5237/2018]
5. In sum and substance, what boils down for adjudication lies
in a very narrow compass i.e.
(A) Whether the petitioner is disentitled to seek benefit of
his performance despite his acquittal in the criminal
proceedings owing to which his candidature was
cancelled?
(B) Whether the petitioner indulged in any concealment
overt or covert at the time of filling up of his application
form for the post in question pursuant to the
advertisement dated 10.02.2016?
6. Adverting to the second question first i.e. whether or not
there is any concealment;
6.1 The answer to the said question is not far too seek in view of
the specific undisputed averment contained in the petition that the
advertisement was issued on 10.02.2016 and the FIR was
registered against the petitioner on 01.06.2012 for the alleged
offences under Sections 435, 323 and 34 of IPC. After trial, the
petitioner was acquitted by the trial court vide order dated
30.09.2014. Clearly the chronology is self-revealing and reflects
that petitioner did not indulge in any concealment as on the date
of his application. Furthermore, during document verification, the
petitioner explicitly disclosed the details of the FIR in good faith.
Thus, there is no evidence of willful misrepresentation or deceit.
The answer to the second question is accordingly in negative.
7. Moving on now to the first question i.e. whether the
petitioner is disentitled to seek benefit of his performance despite
the fact that he has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings
owing to which his candidature was cancelled;
[2025:RJ-JD:980] (4 of 6) [CW-5237/2018]
7.1 The said question also has to be necessarily answered in
negative, in view of the fact that an acquittal is an acquittal, on
whatever ground. That aside even the equity is loaded in favour of
the petitioner.
8. Be that as it may, 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 was filed by the State. Denying the petitioner an
appointment solely due to an FIR/trial, in which he has been
acquitted, amounts to punishing him.
9. In this context reference may be had to another judgment
dated 13.05.2024 rendered by me in somewhat similar
circumstances in case titled Rajendra Meena Vs. State of
Rajasthan1, relevant thereof are paras Nos.12 to 20 which
are not being reproduced for sake of brevity. Same view was
taken by me in Shankar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and
other2.
10. Reliance by the respondents on Rule 13(2)(ii) of the Rules of
1989, as amended, is completely misplaced. This rule does not
allow for arbitrary rejection without considering the specific
circumstances of each case. The charges under Sections 323
(simple hurt), 435 (Mischief by fire or explosive substance with
intent to cause damage to amount of one hundred (in case of
agricultural produce) and Section 34 (Acts done by several
1 Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur - S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15957/2021
2 Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur - S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.756/2022, decided on 18.11.2024
[2025:RJ-JD:980] (5 of 6) [CW-5237/2018]
persons in furtherance of common intention) are not heinous or
grave offenses. They do not indicate moral turpitude or a serious
threat to law and order. In any case petitioner stands acquitted of
all charges. An acquitted individual 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.
11. As an upshot, the petition merits being allowed. The order
dated 02.04.2018 (Annex.7) is set aside. The respondents are
directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner in
accordance with his merit pursuant to which he was also allotted
district for joining on the post of Constable Driver, however, at the
time of joining, he was not allowed to do so only on the ground
that though he was acquitted but since acquittal was on the
ground of benefit of doubt, therefore, he was non-suited.
12. Though, counsel for the petitioner earnestly argues that the
post on which petitioner was to join is lying vacant as on today but
on Court query, counsel for the respondent is unable to assist as
to whether the post is lying vacant or not. He would submit that
after the advertisement in question, which was issued in the year
2016, subsequent selection has also been carried out by various
advertisements and in all likelihood, the said post was factored in
the subsequent advertisement and has been consumed by way of
fresh selection.
13. Being so, a direction is issued to the respondents that
subject to ascertaining a vacancy qua one post in question in the
[2025:RJ-JD:980] (6 of 6) [CW-5237/2018]
category petitioner has competed, he shall be issued appointment
letter within a period of 30 days upon his approaching them with
the web-print of the instant order.
14. In case no vacant post is available, the candidature of the
petitioner shall be considered on the next available post and in
case it is found that when the next post becomes available the
petitioner has become over-age, then he shall be given relaxation
qua his age since for no fault of him, he has already remained out
of service since the year 2018, while his counter-parts were given
appointment.
15. In the parting, I may also make it clear that for the period
petitioner remained out of service, he shall not be entitled to get
any financial benefits and his seniority shall be reckoned with
effect from the date of his appointment.
16. Needless to say that passing of the directions by this Court
shall not be construed that if the petitioner is not found eligible
otherwise either in terms of eligibility and/or merits, even then he
is to be given appointment.
17. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
34-skm/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
