Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chuni Lal Bishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:2361) on 14 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:2361]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 974/2025
Chuni Lal Bishnoi S/o Shri Kishna Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/
o Of Vada Naya Village And Post Bhadvi, Tehsil Bagoda District
Jalore.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, College, Education,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Rajasthan, Ajmer
Through Secretary.
3. Joint Director (Hrd), College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RS Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : ----
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
14/01/2025
1. Petitioner herein seeks appointment on the post of Assistant
Professor (Political Science) in accordance with his merit position,
pursuant to the final select list dated 22.07.2022.
2. Briefly speaking, relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are
that the respondent no. 2 issued an advertisement on 18.12.2020
for the post of Assistant Professor. The petitioner, meeting all
eligibility criteria, applied for the post of Assistant Professor
(Political Science). He appeared for the written exam and was
allotted Roll No. 238011. The petitioner secured Merit No. 13 in
the general category after the interviews were scheduled.
2.1. On 18.10.2022, appointment orders were issued, but the
petitioner's name was not recommended, and no prior notice was
given.
[2025:RJ-JD:2361] (2 of 5) [CW-974/2025]
2.2. On 04.11.2022, the Joint Director (HRD) issued a notice
regarding a pending criminal case. The petitioner responded on
08.11.2022, stating that he had been interrogated by the SOG in
the REET case and had interim protection from the High Court.
2.3. Despite a satisfactory reply, no action was taken. The
petitioner submitted representations on 18.01.2023, 22.06.2023,
06.12.2023, 20.03.2024, 16.07.2024, 09.12.2024, and
10.01.2025, requesting an appointment.
2.4. On 18.03.2024, the petitioner received a notice, appeared
before the respondents on 03.04.2024, and submitted an
explanation. No decision has been made regarding his
appointment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that, despite the
petitioner successfully clearing all stages of the selection process,
he was denied appointment to the post in question due to the
pendency of a criminal case against him, which was registered
much later than filling-up the application form.
4. Heard.
5. First and foremost, from the official record appended with
petition which duly supported with sworn affidavit on oath of
petitioner that the petitioner not indulged in any concealment and/
or misrepresentation at the time of filing his application for the
post in question pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.12.2020.
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, since the FIR in question was
registered on 27.09.2021, i.e., much later than the cut-off date as
per advertisement i.e. 30.12.2020.
[2025:RJ-JD:2361] (3 of 5) [CW-974/2025]
6. It transpires that the petitioner is a meritorious candidate in
the selection process and has been included in the final select list
issued by Respondent No. 2. The petitioner's only grievance is that
he has been denied appointment on the purported ground that an
FIR No. 402/2021 lodged at P.S. Gangapur City against 10 persons
under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and 4 & 6 of the Rajasthan Public
Examination Act, 1992 is pending against him. The petitioner was
neither named in the FIR nor present in Gangapur City during the
REET examination.
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
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
[2025:RJ-JD:2361] (4 of 5) [CW-974/2025]
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 paras 8 and 9 of the judgment
ibid. I see no reason why the benefit thereof be not given to the
petitioner.
9. In the premise, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the respondents that, subject to the petitioner being
otherwise found meritorious, and the only reason for not
appointing him is the registration of the FIR, the appointment
letter shall be issued subject to the petitioner providing an
undertaking that, in the event of his subsequent conviction in the
alleged offence for which criminal proceedings are pending, he
shall not claim any equity, and his appointment shall be
terminated in accordance with the law.
10. Needful be done within a period of 30 days upon petitioner
approaching the respondent with the web-print of the instant
order.
11. Needless to say that in case, any favourable order is passed,
the petitioner shall be accorded seniority and notional benefits
[2025:RJ-JD:2361] (5 of 5) [CW-974/2025]
with effect from the same date when his counterparts were issued
appointment letters with whom he had competed pursuant to the
same advertisement. As regards the financial benefits, he shall not
be entitled to the same on the principle of 'no work' 'no pay'.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
146-/Jitender/Rmathur
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
