Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bheemsen vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:14130) on 17 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:14130]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9380/2021
Bheemsen S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Village Dhani Araiyan, P.o. Bhukarka, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Home
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. The Commandant 8Th Battalion, Rac (Ir), Gazipur, Delhi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Utkarsh Singh.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Soni for
Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
17/03/2025
1. Under challenge herein is an order dated 13.07.2021
(Annex.10), vide which, selection of the petitioner on the post of
Constable Driver was rejected on the ground of pendency of
criminal case against him.
2. The petitioner completed his senior secondary examination in
2012 and obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in 2015. He later
acquired a driving license. On 04.12.2019, an advertisement for
recruitment to the posts of Constable General and Constable
Driver was issued by respondent No. 3, which included 12 posts of
Constable Driver for the 8th Battalion, RAC(IR), Gazipur, Delhi.
[2025:RJ-JD:14130] (2 of 6) [CW-9380/2021]
The petitioner, eligible for the Constable Driver post, applied under
the OBC non-creamy layer category.
2.1. The petitioner appeared for the written examination on
06.11.2020 and qualified, securing high marks under the general
category despite applying as an OBC candidate. He then appeared
and qualified in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and Physical
Standard Test (PST) on 10.04.2021.
2.2. On 17.04.2021, the petitioner was selected for the Constable
Driver post, ranked No.1 under the general male category, and
was called for document verification on 26.04.2021. During
verification, the petitioner disclosed a criminal case registered
against him, which he was exonerated from by the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, on
22.01.2021.
2.2. Despite submitting the exonerating judgment, the
respondents canceled the petitioner's selection vide an order
dated 13.07.2021 (Annex.10), citing his involvement in the
criminal case. The cancellation was based on the decision of the
Superintendent of Police (Recruitment & Promotion) Board,
Rajasthan, Jaipur, referencing a notification dated 02.03.2020. The
petitioner's candidature was deemed ineligible under sub-rule (2)
of Rule 13, prompting to filing of this petition.
3. The relevant stance in the reply is that, while submitting the
online application form for the post in question, the petitioner, in
response to the column "Whether any FIR has ever been lodged
against you," answered "No." However, during verification, it was
discovered that FIR No. 475/2019 under Sections 323, 341, 147,
148, and 149 of the IPC was registered against him. Therefore,
[2025:RJ-JD:14130] (3 of 6) [CW-9380/2021]
the petitioner intentionally concealed this fact and deliberately
entered "No" in the column. Consequently, he is not entitled to
any relief from this Court, and his petition deserves to be
dismissed.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
and have gone through the case file.
5. No doubt at the time of filling up the online application for
the post in question the petitioner did not disclose the factum of
registration of an FIR against him. Reasons are not far to seek. He
must have been in a dilemma that in case he discloses the same,
there was high prospect of being disqualified at that very stage.
He will not be allowed to participate in the selection process.
Moreover, his dilemma seems to have arisen from his bonafide
belief that he was falsely implicated in the FIR, as no role of any
kind was attributed to him. He was not even a principal accused,
though, of course, was arrayed as accused being part of assembly
of people who were present at the scene of occurrence, which led
to registration of FIR.
6. In somewhat similar circumstances, in the case of Ravindra
Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.
5902/2012), decided on 22nd February 2024, Supreme Court
addressed an issue akin to what is herein, where a candidate who
had explicitly stated in an affidavit that no criminal proceedings
were pending against him. While dealing with this situation, the
Supreme Court observed as under:-
"29. xxx xxx xxx
X. While examining whether the procedure adopted
for enquiry by the authority was fair and reasonable, we
find that the order of cancellation of 12.04.2005 does not
even follow the mandate prescribed in Clause 4 of the
[2025:RJ-JD:14130] (4 of 6) [CW-9380/2021]
Form of verification of character set out in the earlier
part of this judgment. Like it was found in Ram Kumar
(supra) instead of considering whether the appellant was
suitable for appointment, the Appointing Authority has
mechanically held his selection was irregular and illegal
because the appellant had furnished an affidavit with
incorrect facts. Hence, even applying the board principles
set out in para 93.7 of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra), we
find that the order of cancellation dated 12.04.2005 is
neither fair nor reasonable. Clause 9 of the recruitment
notification has to be read in the context of the law laid
down in the cases set out hereinabove.
30. On the facts of the case and in the backdrop of the
special circumstances set out hereinabove, where does the
non-disclosure of the unfortunate criminal case, (which
too ended in acquittal), stand in the scheme of things? In
our opinion on the peculiar facts of the case, we do not
think it can be deemed fatal for the appellant. Board-
brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will
be unjust and the same will tantamount to being
completely oblivious to the ground realities obtaining in
this great, vast and diverse country. Each case will depend
on the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and
the court will have to take a holistic view, based on
objective criteria, with the available precedents serving as
a guide. It can never be a one size fits all scenario."
7. Per contra the above, learned counsel for the respondents
relies on an another judgment of Supreme Court rendered in
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyug Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Anil
Kanwariya, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 136, wherein it was
held as under :-
"12. The issue/question may be considered from another
angle, from the employer's point of view. The question is
not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute
of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently
acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility
and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the
initial stage of the employment, i.e., while submitting the
declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made
false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or
suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal
case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the
employer might not have appointed him. Then the
question is of TRUST. Therefore, in such a situation,
where the employer feels that an employee who at the
initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not
[2025:RJ-JD:14130] (5 of 6) [CW-9380/2021]
disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the
material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in
service because such an employee cannot be relied upon
even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue
such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue
or not to continue such an employee always must be
given to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is
observed and as observed hereinabove in catena of
decision such an employee cannot claim the appointment
and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right."
8. While the observations contained hereinabove, no doubt
gives the discretion to an employer to disqualify candidate in case
of non-disclosure / suppression of the material facts but the
pressing question would be that whether it is a case of the
employer having a trust deficit arising out of the non-disclosure by
a candidate?
9. In the present case, rejection of the petitioner's candidature
does not seem to be based on trust deficit but merely a
mechanical exercise of mind by stating that since (i) he
suppressed the registration of the FIR; and (ii) registration of the
FIR disqualifies him, therefore, he was not eligible to be
appointed.
10. The impugned order does not reflect that there was an
objective view taken by independent application of mind. Decision
was merely regarding petitioner's ineligibility, and it is owing to
that he was held to be non-suitable.
11. Accordingly, I see no reason why the benefit of latest
judgment of Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar, ibid, be not
accorded to the petitioner.
12. It is accordingly so ordered.
13. As an upshot, the petition is allowed. As during pendency of
the writ proceedings, vide an interim order dated 22.07.2021, one
[2025:RJ-JD:14130] (6 of 6) [CW-9380/2021]
post was ordered to be kept vacant, respondents are, therefore,
directed to give the benefit of the said interim protection to the
petitioner by passing appropriate orders for petitioner's
appointment pursuant to his selection and allow him to join the
service, subject of course to his otherwise being eligible and
meritorious in the selection process.
14. Necessary exercise be carried out within a period of 30 days
from the date petitioner approaches the respondents with a web
print of the instant order.
15. 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.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
79-Rmathur-Sumit/-
Whether Fit for Reporting:- Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
