Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rohit Kumar Kalbi vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:1035]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11438/2024
Rohit Kumar Kalbi S/o Narayan Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Purohit Was Nanarvada, Post - Bhavri Tehsil - Pindwara, District
Sirohi (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
3. District Education Officer (Elementary Edu.), Sirohi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Deora.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kamlesh Sharma a/w Mr. Digvijay
Sodha.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
08/01/2025
1. Petitioner herein is before this Court seeking directions to the
respondents to conduct his document verification and grant him
appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II, pursuant
to the advertisement dated 16.12.2022.
2. Briefly speaking, relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are
that the Rajasthan Karamchari Chayan Board, Jaipur, issued an
advertisement on 16.12.2022 inviting applications for the post of
Teacher Grade-3 Level-2 (Class 6-8) in Hindi for the Non-TSP
Area. The petitioner, being eligible, applied for the said position.
2.1. In response to the advertisement, the Director of Elementary
Education, Bikaner, issued the final list of selected candidates on
05.10.2023. The petitioner's name appeared at serial number 5 in
[2025:RJ-JD:1035] (2 of 5) [CW-11438/2024]
the list with a merit score of 371. During the document
verification, candidates were asked to fill out a self-declaration
form, including information about any pending criminal cases. The
petitioner disclosed that an FIR (No. 30/2020) had been filed
against him on 30.01.2020, but no charge sheet had been filed
yet.
2.2. The FIR against the petitioner stemmed from an incident on
29.01.2020 during the Panchayat election at Panchayat Bhawan,
Nitoda. The petitioner's mother, Sunder Devi, was a candidate,
and during the counting, a group, including a losing candidate,
engaged in stone-pelting. The petitioner went to the scene to help
his mother but was detained by the police, despite being innocent.
His name was wrongly included in the FIR.
2.3. The case remains under investigation, even after four years.
The petitioner has submitted a representation to the
Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, on 18.01.2024, requesting a fair
investigation, but no action has been taken despite multiple
meetings with the Investigating Officer and Superintendent of
Police.
2.4. After the district allotment, the list was sent to the District
Education Officers. The petitioner, who is from Sirohi, was
recommended to the DEO Sirohi, along with three other
candidates. However, the petitioner's counseling was not
conducted, as it was noted that, according to a departmental
circular (P.1(1) Karmik/K-2/2016), any candidate with a pending
criminal case would be ineligible. Hence, the present petition.
3. Defense taken in the reply is that candidature of each and
every applicant is verified following the prescribed procedure.
[2025:RJ-JD:1035] (3 of 5) [CW-11438/2024]
Case in hand relates to offences under Sections 143, 332, 353,
308 & 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Same were mentioned in
the verification certificate issued by the police station concerned.
Therefore, the candidature of the petitioner was rightly not
considered in view thereof. The present writ petition thus deserves
to be dismissed.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
and gone through the case record.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that, despite being
selected and having his documents verified, he was denied joining
due to the ongoing criminal case, and that his disqualification was
unjustified.
6. First and foremost, it is not the case of the respondents that
the petitioner indulged in any concealment and/or
misrepresentation at the time of filing his application for the post
in question pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.12.2022. In
fact, there was no occasion on the part of the petitioner to indulge
in any concealment and/or misrepresentation, overtly or covertly,
at the time of applying and / or during document verification.
7. The controversy raised that requires adjudication herein was
also subject matter of another writ petition which was decided by
me vide an order / judgment dated 30.01.2024 bearing SBCWP
No. 18747/2019 (Patram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).
The observations and the ratio as enunciated therein being
apposite is reproduced hereinbelow:
"6. Turning to the petitioner's case on its merits, it is acknowledged,
as per the respondents' submitted response, that the petitioner did
not withhold any information regarding the FIR against him. Before
[2025:RJ-JD:1035] (4 of 5) [CW-11438/2024]
joining his duties, he voluntarily disclosed the existence of FIR
No.309/2019, registered at Police Station Anoopgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar, under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 354 of IPC, initiated
by his estranged wife due to marital discord. Furthermore, the
criminal trial stemming from this FIR has concluded with the
petitioner's acquittal.
7. The only opposition at this stage for not allowing the petition
is reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the
Apex Court judgment rendered in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India &
Ors., reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471.
8. Having perused the judgment, ibid, what has to be borne in mind is
that candidates must truthfully disclose information regarding
convictions, acquittals, arrests, or pending criminal cases to their
employers, both before and after employment, without suppression or
false statements. Employers, when terminating services or canceling
candidatures due to false information, should consider special
circumstances and relevant government regulations. Additionally,
appropriate actions should be taken if there is suppression or false
information regarding involvement in a criminal case, depending on
its nature. The accuracy and specificity of attestation/verification
forms are crucial, and guilt for suppression or false suggestion
requires attributable knowledge. Employers, no doubt, can maintain
their discretion in considering disclosed information and are not
obligated to appoint candidates even if truthful disclosures are
made, particularly in cases involving multiple pending cases or
serious criminal offenses.
9. In the instant case there is no allegation of suppression or
concealment on the part of petitioner. Even the offences, at the
relevant time when he was embroiled in, did not in any manner
impinge on the nature of duties which are/were to be performed by
the petitioner. Be that as it may, he in any case stands acquitted and
has vindicated himself.
10. As an upshot of my discussion, as above, there is no justification
for denying the petitioner appointment on the post he has been
selected for."
8. In view of the aforesaid, it turns out that the case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment ibid and I see no
reason why the benefit thereof be not given to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are
directed to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner for the
post, on which, he has been successful in the selection process,
within a period of 30 days of his filing an appropriate application
[2025:RJ-JD:1035] (5 of 5) [CW-11438/2024]
before the competent authority along with web print of the instant
order.
10. The petitioner shall be allowed to join the post in question
subject to his giving an undertaking/affidavit that, in case he is
convicted in the pending trial, he shall not claim any right to the
post in question.
11. Regarding monitory benefits, it is clarified that the petitioner
shall not be entitled to remuneration for the period of non-service,
adhering to the principle of "no work, no pay." However, all other
notional benefits viz. seniority etc. related to the same selection
process, in which the petitioner participated, will be accorded upon
him with effect from the same date as his counterparts with whom
he had successfully competed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
32-/Jitender/Rmathur/-
Whether fit for reporting: Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
