[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kailash Kumar vs The Director And Joint Secretary ... on 13 February, 2026

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:8348]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11452/2025
Kailash Kumar S/o Shri Chautha Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Village Bhootel, Post Deora, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalole,
Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       The Director And Joint Secretary, Directorate Of
         Treasuries And Accounts, Government Of Rajasthan, Vitta
         Bhawan, E-Block, Jyoti Nagar, Janpath, Jaipur.
2.       The Treasury Officer, Office Of The Treasury, District
         Treasury, Jalore - 343001, Rajasthan.
3.       The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (Rssb),
         State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises,
         Durgapura, Jaipur - 302018, Rajasthan.
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Surendra Thanvi
For Respondent(s)          :     Ms. Navya Sharma for
                                 Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG


         HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order 13/02/2026

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

"1. The Respondent No. 2 is directed to permit the petitioner to join his place of posting at Jalore forthwith in terms of the appointment order dated 11.01.2025 (Annexure-7)

2. The order dated 14 January 2025 issued by Respondent No. 2 (Annexure-8), and any other communications or orders by which the petitioner's joining has been withheld may kindly be declared illegal and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

3. The respondents' decision to withhold the petitioner's appointment on the sole ground of pendency of a criminal proceeding, may kindly be declared being arbitrary, discriminatory and without jurisdiction;

4. The Respondent department may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to join his duties as per order dated 11.01.2025 forthwith."

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that

pursuant to an advertisement dated 20.06.2023 issued by the

(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 03:40:29 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:8348] (2 of 6) [CW-11452/2025]

Rajasthan Staff Selection Board for recruitment to the post of

Junior Accountant, the petitioner applied, appeared in the

examination held on 11.02.2024, and was declared successful,

having secured 596.0681 marks. His name was included in the list

of selected candidates published on 27.06.2024 and thereafter he

was called for document verification vide order dated 26.09.2024.

The petitioner appeared for verification on 22.10.2024 and

disclosed a pending criminal case arising out of FIR No. 550 dated

15.11.2019 registered at Police Station Basni, Jodhpur City. After

due verification of all documents, including the said disclosure, his

candidature was confirmed and his name appeared in the final

selection list dated 17.12.2024.Subsequently, vide appointment

order dated 11.01.2025, the petitioner was appointed as Junior

Accountant and allotted posting at Jalore, with a direction to join

within fifteen days. However, when the petitioner reported for

joining within the stipulated period, he was not permitted to join

without assigning any reason. Despite repeated representations

and issuance of a legal notice, the respondents have withheld his

joining, though similarly situated candidates against whom

criminal cases were pending have been permitted to join.

Aggrieved by such action/inaction of the respondents, the

petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of

the respondents in withholding the petitioner's joining despite

issuance of a valid appointment order dated 11.01.2025 is

unsustainable in the eyes of law. He submits that after completion

of the entire selection process, including document verification and

disclosure of the pending criminal case, the petitioner was

(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 03:40:29 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:8348] (3 of 6) [CW-11452/2025]

appointed and directed to join within fifteen days. He further

submits that once the competent authority issued the appointment

order, the petitioner acquired a legitimate right to join, which

could not have been frustrated without any reasoned order or

statutory authority. He also submits that respondent No.2, being

merely the joining authority, had no jurisdiction to revisit, suspend

or withhold the operation of a valid appointment order issued by

the competent authority. In absence of any statutory provision

conferring such power, the action of respondent No.2 in seeking

legal opinion and unilaterally preventing the petitioner from

joining, amounts to acting without jurisdiction and is liable to be

quashed. He submits that the petitioner had, at all stages, acted

bona fidely and transparently by disclosing the pendency of FIR

No.550 dated 15.11.2019 registered at Police Station Basni,

District Jodhpur City. He further submits that the said disclosure

was duly considered at the time of document verification and

thereafter the petitioner was included in the final merit list and

was subsequently appointed. He submits that no fresh material or

adverse development has arisen subsequent to the issuance of the

appointment order. He also submits that there exists no provision

under the applicable service rules which disqualifies a candidate

solely on account of pendency of a criminal case. He submits that

it is a settled principle of law that mere pendency of a criminal

proceeding does not ipso facto debar a candidate from public

employment, particularly in the absence of conviction or statutory

prohibition.

4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel representing

the petitioner places reliance on the judgment passed by the

(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 03:40:29 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:8348] (4 of 6) [CW-11452/2025]

Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Mukesh Kumar v. State

of Rajasthan reported in [2016 (3) WLC 345], wherein it has

been held that pendency of a criminal case cannot automatically

operate as a bar to appointment.

5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits

that the petitioner was not permitted to join his duties pursuant to

the appointment order dated 11.01.2025 solely on account of the

pendency of a criminal/judicial case registered against him. He

submits that FIR No.550/2019 is pending at Police Station Basni,

District Jodhpur City, for offences under Sections 419, 420 and

120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66-D of the

Information Technology Act, 2008 and in view of the seriousness

and nature of the allegations, the competent authority deemed it

inappropriate to allow the petitioner to assume charge at this

stage. He further submits that the petitioner does not acquire an

indefeasible right to appointment merely upon issuance of an

appointment order, particularly when material facts relating to

pending criminal proceedings are involved. It is contended by

counsel representing the respondents that the employer is entitled

to assess suitability and antecedents of a candidate before

permitting him to join public service, especially for a post

involving financial responsibilities. He also submits that the matter

has been referred to the higher authorities for appropriate

guidance and clarification and necessary action shall be taken

upon receipt of directions from the Directorate. He, thus, contends

that in these circumstances, the respondents have acted

cautiously and in administrative prudence, and the petitioner is

not entitled to any relief.

(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 03:40:29 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:8348] (5 of 6) [CW-11452/2025]

6. I have heard and considered learned counsel for the parties

and have perused the material available on record.

7. Suffice it to say that the sole ground on which the petitioner

has been denied joining is the pendency of the aforesaid criminal

case under Sections 419, 420 and 120-B IPC and Section 66-D of

the Information Technology Act. A Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court, in Amrit Pal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (order dated

27.11.2024), while dealing with a similar issue, has categorically

held that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot, ipso facto,

operate as a bar to appointment. Learned counsel for the

petitioner has also rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of

the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mukesh

Kumar (supra), wherein the precise issue; as to whether mere

pendency of a criminal case can operate as an absolute bar to

appointment, was directly considered and answered in the

negative. The relevant paragraph of the judgment of Mukesh

Kumar (Supra) is reproduced here:-

"xxxxxxxx

15. Viewed in light of the above factual scenario, it is evident that the Rules not post any hurdle against the petitioner's right to be appointed in the police services. At best, a rider can be imposed in the petitioner's appointment order that in the event of conviction in the above criminal case, he may be liable to be terminated from service without holdingany enquiry and an undertaking in this regard can be procured from him in this regard.

16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner on the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the questioned selection process ignoring the pendency of the above criminal case against the petitioner. However, the appointment order shall bear a condition that the petitioner's services may be terminated in the event of his conviction and he shall also submit an undertaking to this effect before joining to the post. Since the petitioner was gainfully employed as a

(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 03:40:29 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:8348] (6 of 6) [CW-11452/2025]

Teacher during the intervening period, he is not entitled to any consequential benefits. However, the respondents shall grant him all notional services benefits from the date of the order Annex. 6 dated 22.12.2009.