Ganesh Lal Parmar vs Secretary (Admn.) Jodhpur Vidyut ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8775 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ganesh Lal Parmar vs Secretary (Admn.) Jodhpur Vidyut ... on 12 March, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:13887]



      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4559/2023
Ganesh Lal Parmar S/o Hajaram Parmar, Aged About 27 Years,
Naya Ganv Nichla, Tehsil And District Dungarpur, (Rajasthan).
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
Secretary (Admn.) Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, New
Power House, Jodhpur. (Rajasthan).
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Ramawatar Singh.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Vipul Dharnia.

               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral)

12/03/2025

1. Petitioner herein, is before this Court, inter-alia, seeks

issuance of appropriate writ, order and / or direction commanding

the respondents to accord him appointment on the post of

Technical Helper-III, pursuant to advertisement dated 04.02.2022

(Annex.1) with all consequential benefits.

2. Brief facts first. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL)

issued an advertisement dated 04.02.2022, inviting applications

for the recruitment of Technical Helper-III in both TSP and Non-

TSP areas. The petitioner, being fully eligible, applied for the

same. In the online written examination, petitioner secured

82.0000 marks, which were subsequently normalized to 80.36679

marks.

2.1 After being successful in the aforesaid examination, the

petitioner was called for document verification on 19.01.2023,

wherein he submitted all original documents alongwith an affidavit

that disclosed pendency of a criminal case against him.

[2025:RJ-JD:13887] (2 of 8) [CW-4559/2023]

2.2 Despite the petitioner being included in the select list, JVVNL

issued the impugned order dated 03.03.2023, appointing all other

selected candidates, but excluding the petitioner.

2.4 The State Government has issued a circular dated 15.07.2016,

which bars the appointment of candidates who conceal the fact of

being involved in criminal cases, particularly those involving moral

turpitude, based on guidelines set by the Apex Court and High

Courts.

2.5 The petitioner was implicated in an incident on 27.09.2020,

leading to an FIR No.0252/2020, dated 28.09.2020, lodged

against 230 individuals, including him, at P.S. Dobda, Dungarpur

for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 283, 269,

270, 336 & 188 of IPC. Following the investigation, a challan was

filed against the accused. However, charges have not yet been

framed against the petitioner. Being aggrieved against the

impugned order dated 03.03.2023 (Annexure-06), petitioner has

approached this Court by way of the instant petition.

3. Relevant stand taken by the respondents in their reply is as

follows:-

"3. That the averments contained in para 3 of the writ petition are denied in the manner as alleged by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination on provisional basis and his candidature was not determined by the respondent Nigam, further the successful candidates were provisionally called by the respondent Nigam for verification of documents to ascertained their candidature.

4. That the averments contained in para 4 of the writ petition are not disputed so far it relates to preparation of merit list of successful candidate 1.5 time of the vacancies to call for document verification to ascertained their candidature and to select the successful candidature as per provisions of rules. It is submitted that merely calling candidate for document verification does not create any right in favour of the petitioner.

It is further submitted that petitioner was required to declare that no criminal case is pending against him or he was not convicted by any court. That pursuant to which the petitioner has submitted an affidavit dated 17.01.2023 (Annexure-4) wherein, he has mentioned

[2025:RJ-JD:13887] (3 of 8) [CW-4559/2023]

that criminal case is pending against him before JM Court, Dungarpur bearing Case No.252/2020 for an offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 283, 269, 270, 336 & 188 of IPC. It is humbly submitted that for appointment in Nigam a candidate is required to have sound character and in instant case petitioner was involved in a criminal case and criminal proceeding was pending against him in the court."

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions

and perused the case file along with the annexures appended

therewith.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the review

committee has wrongly withheld the appointment of the petitioner

only on the sole ground of mere registration of an FIR. He argues

that the FIR in question has been lodged on general allegations

against 230 persons and no specific allegation / role has been

attributed to the petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents relies on

judgment rendered in State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Gobinda

Behera : (2021) 14 SCC 445, wherein it is held as under :-

5. The respondent was seeking public employment in the State Police service. His duties, on appointment to the service, would be of a responsible character, bearing intrinsically on the maintenance of law and order and with consequences for personal liberty of citizens. To expect that an applicant for such a position would be truthful in the disclosure of information sought about the antecedents is a justifiable basis for assessment of personality and character. The employer can legitimately conclude that a person who has suppressed material facts does not deserve to be in its employment.

6. In the present case, the case against the respondent cannot be regarded as being trivial in nature. That apart, it is evident that, despite being involved in the criminal case, the respondent suppressed these facts from the authorities while applying for the post of a Constable in the State Police. The criminal case was quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC on the basis of a compromise between the parties much after the order of discharge. Hence, the view which has been taken by the High Court is palpably unsustainable. The Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application.

 [2025:RJ-JD:13887]                      (4 of 8)                     [CW-4559/2023]



7.   He    further     relies      on     Union         Territory,   Chandigarh

Administration & Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar & Anr. :(2018) 1

SCC 797, wherein it is held as under :-

10. The acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of the suitability of the candidates in the post concerned. If a person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot always be inferred that he was falsely involved or he had no criminal antecedents. Unless it is an honourable acquittal, the candidate cannot claim the benefit of the case. What is honourable acquittal, was considered by this Court in Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram [Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 566 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 229] , in which this Court held as under: (SCC p. 609, para 24) "24. The meaning of the expression "honourable acquittal" came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 594] . In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions "honourable acquittal", "acquitted of blame", "fully exonerated" are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression "honourably acquitted". When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted."

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx

13. It is thus well settled that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle him for appointment to the post. Still it is open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether he is suitable for appointment to the post. From the observations of this Court in Mehar Singh [Commr. of Police v. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 669 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 910] and Parvez Khan [State of M.P. v. Parvez Khan, (2015) 2 SCC 591 :

(2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 544] cases, it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be of impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was honourably acquitted/completely exonerated.

The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final

[2025:RJ-JD:13887] (5 of 8) [CW-4559/2023]

unless it is shown to be mala fide. The Screening Committee also must be alive to the importance of the trust reposed in it and must examine the candidate with utmost character.

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx

15. From the above details, we find that the Screening Committee examined each and every case of the respondents and reasonings for their acquittal and taken the decision. While deciding whether a person involved in a criminal case has been acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a post in a police force, nature of offence in which he is involved, whether it was an honourable acquittal or only an extension of benefit of doubt because of witnesses turned hostile and flaws in the prosecution are all the aspects to be considered by the Screening Committee for taking the decision whether the candidate is suitable for the post. As pointed out earlier, the Screening Committee examined each and every case and reasonings for their acquittal and took the decision that the respondents are not suitable for the post of Constable in Chandigarh Police. The procedure followed is as per Guideline 2(A)(b) and object of such screening is to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enters police force. While so, the court cannot substitute its views for the decision of the Screening Committee."

8. I shall now proceed to render my opinion by recording

reasons and discussions thereof in the succeeding part. First and

foremost, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner

on the judgments as quoted herein-above seems to be misplaced.

While there is no quibble about the preposition that a person

seeking appointment in police services cannot simplicitor take

advantage of his being acquitted or discharged in the criminal

proceedings based on compromise between the parties.

Antecedents of a person seeking appointment in police services no

doubt shall precede over his suspected culpability in the offence

wherein the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond any

shadow of doubt, that too after due application of mind by the

employer.

9. In the instant case, petitioner seeks appointment on the post

of Technical Helper. Having seen the report submitted by the

review committee, it appears that there has been no application of

mind, whatsoever, of any kind, to withhold the appointment of the

[2025:RJ-JD:13887] (6 of 8) [CW-4559/2023]

petitioner, the same has been done merely by cursorily observing

that since the criminal case is pending, therefore, the petitioner

cannot be appointed until the decision of the same. For ready

reference, english translation of the report of the review

committee reads as under ;-

"Case Number-4: Shri Ganesh Lal Parmar, Technical Helper-III Recruitment Year-2021.

It has been decided in the meeting that due to the pending criminal case against Shri Ganesh Lal Parmar and as per the order dated 21.04.2023 of the Hon'ble High Court of Jodhpur, one position of Technical Helper - 2021 will remain vacant."

10. Reference may be had to an order / judgment dated

30.01.2024 bearing SBCWP No. 18747/2019 (Patram vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.) rendered by this very Bench. The observations

and the ratio as enunciated therein, being apposite, is reproduced

herein-below:

"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 information regarding involvement in a criminal case, depending on its nature. The accuracy and specificity

[2025:RJ-JD:13887] (7 of 8) [CW-4559/2023]

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."

11. It transpires that the judgment rendered in Patram ibid, is

under challenge by the State, but no steps whatsoever have been

taken for getting the Division Bench Appeal listed after filing of the

same. Moreover, the appeal has not even been registered and is

currently pending in the Registry under objections.

12. Furthermore, I am unable to accept the arguments of

learned counsel for the respondents that the review committee did

not apply its mind since the writ petition is pending before this

Court. There is no stay granted by this Court so as to restrain the

review committee to apply its mind during pendency of the writ

proceedings and in view thereof, the reasoning assigned by the

review committee that since criminal case is pending the

petitioner cannot be appointed, is not sustainable.

13. Neither there is any observation as to what is the role

attributed to the petitioner nor any finding of the offence or the

role attributed to him amounting to moral turpitude nor otherwise

any observation as to how the pending trial might impede the

nature of the duty to be performed by him.

[2025:RJ-JD:13887] (8 of 8) [CW-4559/2023]

14. In the premise, the instant petition is allowed. Respondents

are directed to take steps to issue an appointment letter to the

petitioner subject to him giving an undertaking / affidavit that in

case, he is convicted in the pending criminal proceedings against

him, he shall not claim any equity by virtue of the instant interim

order and the respondents shall be at liberty to dispense with the

services in accordance with law by giving him prior notice.

15. Regarding the vacancy, vide an interim order dated

21.04.2023, one post of Technical Helper-III was directed to be

kept vacant by Coordinate Bench of this Court, then seized of the

matter, in following terms :-

"Issue notice, returnable on 08.05.2023. Issue notice of the stay application also.

Additionally, learned counsel for the petitioner will be free to serve a copy of the writ petition upon the Standing counsel of the respondents department.

Meanwhile and till the next date of hearing, one post of Technical Helper Grade-III in pursuance of the advertisement dated 04.02.2022 (Annex.1) shall be kept vacant."

16. Aforesaid stay order continues to subsist even as on today.

17. In the parting, I may hasten to add that the petitioner shall

be accorded seniority and notional benefits 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'.

18. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(ARUN MONGA),J 96-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-

                                   Whether fit for reporting:     Yes     /     No









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)