Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh Kumar Regar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ... on 8 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:1269]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13401/2017
Suresh Kumar Regar S/o Shri Natu Lal Regar, B/c Regar, R/o
Village Potlan Sahara, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Director General Of Police, Head Quarter Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Chittorgarh, District
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Shrimali.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Soni for
Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
08/01/2025
1. Grievance of the petitioner herein arises out of an order
dated 24.07.2017 (Annex.10), vide which, petitioner's
representation, for considering his candidature on the post of
Constable (GD) under the SC category, pursuant to an
advertisement dated 14.07.2013 (Annex.1), was rejected.
2. Succinctly speaking, relevant facts first.
Advertisement dated 14.07.2013 (Annex.1) was issued for a
total of 12178 vacant posts in various Districts / Units / Battalions
for Constable General, Constable Driver, Constable Band and
Constable Operator. The last date for submitting the online
application form was 22.08.2013.
2.2. The petitioner (SC category) also applied and cleared the
written examination. He secured a position at Serial No.276 in the
final merit list. However, his appointment was withheld due to a
[2025:RJ-JD:1269] (2of 4) [CW-13401/2017]
pending criminal case under Sections 498A and 406 IPC arising
out of matrimonial dispute with his estranged wife.
2.3. After being acquitted of all charges, vide order dated
02.03.2017, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner
submitted a representation, which was rejected on 24.07.2017.
Hence this petition.
3. Stand taken by the respondents in their reply, inter alia, is
that matter was examined by the respondents in light of the
circular No.1300 dated 28.03.2017, issued by the Department of
Home dated 14.08.2013 and Circular dated 15.07.2016 issued by
the Department of Personnel, State Government. The petitioner
has been acquitted while giving benefit of doubt on technical
grounds, therefore, he unsuitable for the appointment as per
Rules. Accordingly, he has not been issued appointment letter.
Therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed as it is devoid of
merit.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard rival contention
addressed on the lines of the respective pleadings of the parties
and perused the case file.
5. In sum and substance, what boils down for adjudication lies
in a very narrow compass i.e. whether the petitioner is dis-entitled
to seek benefit of his performance in selection process, despite his
acquittal in the criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial
dispute?
6. I am of the opinion that the offences under sections 498-A
and 406 IPC neither involve moral turpitude or nor can they be
termed as heinous/serious in nature. None of the circulars dated
28.03.2017, issued by the Department of Home dated
[2025:RJ-JD:1269] (3of 4) [CW-13401/2017]
14.08.2013, Circular dated 15.07.2016 issued by the Department
of Personnel, State Government referred to and relied upon by the
respondents in their written reply have been produced on record.
6.1 Be that as it may, 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 has been acquitted by the competent Court, amounts
to punishing him by the respondents.
6.2 An individual acquitted after trial cannot be stigmatized
merely for having been an accused in a criminal trial in past.
Moreover, denying an employment opportunity to an accused who
has been acquitted is against the principle of reintegration of such
individuals into society against the basic tenets of principles of
addressing recidivism. 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.
7. In this context reference may be had to 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 12 to 20 which are not being reproduced for
sake of brevity.
1 Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur - S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15957/2021
[2025:RJ-JD:1269] (4of 4) [CW-13401/2017]
8. Same view was subsequently taken by me in Shankar Lal
vs. State of Rajasthan and other SB Civil Writ Petition No.
756/2022 decided on 18.11.2024.
9. In the light of above discussion, the question framed in para
5 is answered in the negative. It is held that following the
acquittal in the criminal proceedings, owing to which the
petitioner's candidature was withheld, he is entitled to seek
benefit of his performance.
10. As regards the availability of the post, a Coordinate Bench of
this Court, earlier seized of the matter, vide order dated
14.10.2017 had directed the respondents to keep one post vacant
in the category in which the petitioner had applied.
11. As an upshot, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 24.07.2017 (Annex.10) is quashed and set-aside. The
respondents are directed to issue appointment letter to the
petitioner on the post of Constable (GD) within a period of 30 days
of his approaching the respondents with a web-print of the instant
order.
12. 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', however, 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.
13. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
94-/Jitender/Rmathur/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
