Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vijendra Prasad Sisodiya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:47482) on 4 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:47482]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6969/2021
Vijendra Prasad Sisodiya S/o Raghuveer Prasad Sisodiya, Aged
About 38 Years, Ward No.17, Uparla Bass, Hanuman Mandir, Post
Kuchera, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Secondary Education, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. The Principal, Government Senior Secondary School,
Nimbara, Rani, District Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma
Mr. Piyush Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta
Mr. Bhupesh Charan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
04/11/2025
1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for the
respondents to allow him to join on the post of Lecturer (School
Education).
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that vide advertisement
dated 13.04.2018 applications were invited from eligibile and
desirous candidates for appointment on the post of Lecturer
(Sechool Education) in different subjects including Political
Science. The petitioner possessing the requisite qualifications
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:36:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47482] (2 of 8) [CW-6969/2021]
applied for the post in the subject Political Science. The
respondents vide corrigendum dated 19.09.2019 re-advertised the
post of Lecturer (School Education), however, the candidates who
had applied earlier were not required to apply again. The
petitioner participated in the selection process and ultimately, he
was given appointment vide order dated 01.04.2021, wherein his
name finds place at S.No.11. In pursuance of the appointment
order, the petitioner submitted his joinining before the Principal,
Government Senior Secondary School, Nimbada, Rani, District
Pali. Alongwith the application for joining, the petitioner also
submitted documents including the police verification report issued
by the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur, which mentioned
registration of a criminal case against him, therefore, the Principal
of the concerned school vide letter dated 05.04.2021 sought
clarification from the Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner regarding joining of the petitioner. Since the petitioner
was not allowed to join duties, he preferred the instant writ
petition with the aforesaid prayer.
3. The matter was listed before the court on 12.05.2025, on
which day, while issuing notices to the respondents, it was
directed that the petitioner's appointment on the post of Lecturer
shall not be cancelled. It appears that the respondents did not
receive a copy of the order dated 12.05.2021 in time, therefore,
vide order dated 27.05.2021 the appointment of the petitioner
was cancelled. However, later on vide order dated 20.07.2021, the
earlier order dated 27.05.2021 was kept in abeyance till further
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:36:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47482] (3 of 8) [CW-6969/2021]
orders and one post of Lecturer (Political Science) was kept
reserved for the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a
matrimonial discord between the petitioner and his wife and
therefore, she lodged an FIR against him for the offences under
Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 354, 354B of the IPC and Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, wherein a charge-sheet was filed
against the petitioner. During the pendency of the instant writ
petition, the petitioner and his wife resolved the dispute amicably
and a compromise came to be executed between them and on the
basis of the settlement between the parties, the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur vide judgment dated 27.06.2024
passed in Criminal Original Case No.1735/2020 (FIR No.91/2020
Police Station Mahila Thana, Nagaur) has acquitted the petitioner
from all the charges. A certified copy of the judgment has been
placed on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sole ground
of not allowing the petitioner to join his duties was pendency of
criminal case referred above. However, the fact remains that
firstly, none of the offences alleged involve moral turpitude, rather
the same were outcome of a riff between the petitioner and his
wife due to matrimonial discord and the case was lodged purely in
order to exert pressure upon the petitioner, however, later on
under the guidance of family members, the parties came to senses
and arrived at an amicable settlement. Secondly the petitioner
has already been acquitted in the criminal case and as such, there
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:36:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47482] (4 of 8) [CW-6969/2021]
is no hindrance in allowing the petitioner to join on the post. The
further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
in the matter of appointment in Government service, there is not a
complete bar for a person having criminal antecedents. Even a
convicted person can be given appointment in Government service
if the appointing authority feels that there are redeeming features
and reasons to believe that such a person has cured himself of the
weakness. However, such is not a case in the present matter as
the petitioner has already been acquitted. It is also not the case
of the respondents that the petitioner has concealed any
information in order to get employment. Learned counsel in
support of his contentions has placed reliance on the following
judgments :
(1) State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah
[1999(1) SCC 529]
(2) Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Anr [1996 SCC
(4) 17]
(3) Brijendra Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
[1997(7) SLR 655]
On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for
acceptance of the writ petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits even
though the petitioner has been acquitted based on compromise,
but the actual result of the criminal case (acquittal or discharge)
has no bearing on the employer's right to assess the candidate's
overall conduct and character to determine their fitness for the
role. The employer can still deem a person undesirable for
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:36:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47482] (5 of 8) [CW-6969/2021]
appointment if their antecedents are questionable, particularly if
the acquittal was due to technical reasons like witnesses turning
hostile (not an "honourable acquittal" after a thorough
examination on merits). Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner is seeking employment as a School Lecturer. The duties
attached to the post of School Lecturer are not confined merely to
imparting education and providing academic guidance, but extend
to the inculcation of moral values, discipline, and good character
among students, who are the future citizens of the nation. Having
regard to the nature and dignity of the post, it is imperative that
the incumbent be a person of unimpeachable integrity and moral
conduct. Consequently, a person against whom allegations of
moral turpitude have been made cannot be considered fit to hold a
position in government service. He has placed reliance on the
circular dated 04.12.2019 issued Government regarding
appointment of candidates against whom criminal cases are either
pending or decided. He has also placed reliance upon the
following judgments in support of his contentions :-
(1) Delhi Administration and Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar
[(1996) 11 SCC 605]
(2) Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors. Vs. Pradeep Kumar
& Anr. (2018) 1 SCC 797
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material placed on record.
8. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner is
possessing all the requisite qualifications for the post of School
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:36:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47482] (6 of 8) [CW-6969/2021]
Lecturer advertised by the respondents and after following the
rigid selection process he was declared successful and an
appointment order was issued in his favour. There is no allegation
against the petitioner of concealing any information. Upon perusal
of the record, it is evident that the petitioner was facing trial for
offences under Sections 498A, 406 of the IPC and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act. These offences, by their very nature, are
personal and matrimonial in character, arising out of discord
between the petitioner and his wife. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Pawan Kumar (supra) has observed that an offence can be said
to involve moral turpitude only when it discloses an act of
depravity or vileness in the private and social duties which a
person owes to society. The present offences, being confined to a
matrimonial dispute and not involving any element of fraud,
dishonesty, or corruption, cannot be treated as offences involving
moral turpitude. Registration of such a case cannot by itself
render the petitioner unfit for public employment. The record
further reveals that the petitioner was acquitted by the competent
criminal court on the basis of a lawful compromise entered into
with his wife. Once the criminal court has recorded an acquittal,
the presumption of innocence, which was already existing in
favour of the petitioner, has been fortified. It is a settled principle
that an employer cannot continue to treat a person as guilty once
he has been acquitted, unless there are independent reasons to
doubt his suitability. An acquittal based on a compromise in a
matrimonial case restores the individual's legal and moral status
and cannot be used to deprive him of employment opportunities.
The post to which the petitioner was selected is that of a School
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:36:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47482] (7 of 8) [CW-6969/2021]
Lecturer. The allegations against him were of domestic nature and
have no connection whatsoever with the performance of official
duties as a teacher. It is well recognized that unless the conduct
complained of has a direct bearing on the integrity, honesty, or
efficiency required for public service, it cannot be treated as
disqualification. The alleged offences neither involve moral
depravity nor any act of corruption or abuse of public trust.
Hence, I find that there is no rational nexus between the criminal
proceedings faced by the petitioner and the duties attached to the
post of Lecturer. The petitioner, having been duly selected, was
denied appointment solely on the ground of pendency of criminal
proceedings which have now culminated in his acquittal. Such
denial, in the considered opinion of this court, is arbitrary and
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which
guarantee equality of opportunity in matters of public
employment. In the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India,
[(2016) 8 SCC 471], the Supreme Court has held that in cases
where the employee has been acquitted and the offences do not
involve moral turpitude or have any bearing on employment, a
liberal and sympathetic view should be taken. The principles laid
down therein fully apply to the case at hand. The action of the
respondents in cancelling the petitioner's appointment despite his
acquittal is, therefore, unsustainable in law.
9. While issuing notices to the respondents, this court had
passed an interim order directing that a post be kept reserved for
the petitioner till final adjudication of the writ petition, in
pursuance whereof the respondents have kept one post of School
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:36:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47482] (8 of 8) [CW-6969/2021]
Lecturer (Political Science) reserved till further orders. Apart from
a small dent in the name of this criminal case in which he has
been acquitted, there is no other material on record to indicate
that the antecedents or the conduct of the petitioner was not up to
the mark to appoint him to the post. The petitioner was duly
appointed pursuant to a rigorous selection process and had
fulfilled all the requisite qualifications and conditions prescribed for
the post. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, it is fit
case for issuing directions to the respondents to allow the
petitioner to join his duties in pursuance of the appointment order
dated 01.04.2021.
10. Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed. The order
dated 27.05.2021, whereby the appointment of the petitioner was
cancelled on the ground of pendency of criminal case, is quashed
and set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the
petitioner to join his duties in pursuance of the appointment order
dated 01.04.2021. They would be free to give a different place of
posting than the one mentioned in the order, if the post at that
particular school is not vacant.
11. All pending applications are disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
194-Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:36:26 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
