[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kalu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:11759) on 10 March, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:11759]    (1 of 4)                                          [CW-21986/2025]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21986/2025

Kalu Ram S/o Shri Shyam Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward
No. 16, Guru Nanak Colony, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Animal Husbandry
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Pashudhan Bhawan,
Tonk Road, District Jaipur.
                                                                       ----Respondent


 For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Anirudh Singh Rathore
                                  Mr. Naresh Singh
 For Respondent(s)          :     Ms. Rakhi Choudhary


             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

10/03/2026

1. The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned

order dated 27.10.2025 (Annex. 4), passed by respondent-

department, whereby the petitioner's appointment to the post of

Animal Attendant was cancelled solely on the ground that criminal

proceedings pursuant to FIR No. 119/2019, registered at Police

Station Rawla, District Sri Ganganagar, remain pending against

the petitioner under Sections 498A, 143, and 323 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860.

2. While elucidating the factual matrix, learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner was selected and

appointed to the post of Animal Attendant vide appointment letter

dated 23.09.2025 (Annex.-3) issued by the Staff Selection Board,

Rajasthan, Jaipur.

(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 05:47:52 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11759] (2 of 4) [CW-21986/2025]

3. He further contended that the petitioner had duly submitted

a police verification certificate dated 17.10.2025 (Annex. 7), as

well as a personal declaration dated 13.04.2025 (Annex. 8) to the

respondents, both explicitly disclosing the pendency of the

aforementioned criminal case. Therefore, the present matter does

not involve any non-disclosure/concealment of pending criminal

proceedings.

4. Moreover, learned counsel contended that mere registration

of a criminal case is not sufficient ground for

cancellation/termination of appointment letter. He relied upon

judgments passed by this Hon'ble High Court in Rahul Khatri v

State of Rajasthan & Anr.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

5046/2022 and Abhishek Vishnoi v State of Rajasthan &

Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19331/2023.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on

Circular dated 04.12.2019 (Annex. R/1) issued by Department of

Personnel, State Government with regard to character verification

of candidates, particularly Clauses 1(V) and 1(VII), which

stipulates that persons against whom criminal proceedings are

pending for offences under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860, or offences enumerated in Chapters XVI and XVII

thereof, shall not be eligible for appointment.

6. Learned counsel further contended that pendency of criminal

proceedings against petitioner amounts to moral turpitude which

begets cancellation/termination of the said appointment letter.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

8. In considered view of this Court, the mere pendency of a

criminal case, does not warrant cancellation of the petitioner's (Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 05:47:52 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11759] (3 of 4) [CW-21986/2025]

appointment, particularly where full disclosure has been made by

the petitioner at the outset, vide police verification certificate

dated 17.10.2025 (Annex. 7), as well as a personal declaration

dated 13.04.2025 (Annex. 8).

9. This Hon'ble High Court in Amrit Pal v State of Rajasthan

& Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13198/2024 held that

mere pendency of criminal proceedings under Section 498A is not

a ground for cancellation of appointment. The relevant paragraphs

are reproduced herein below:

"10. I am unable to convince myself with the insipidity of the argument adopted by the learned counsel for respondents that since the charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, petitioner does not deserve to be appointed. Despite allegations under IPC Sections 498A, 406, 323, and 494, the petitioner is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The circular dated 04.12.2019 and the impugned order unjustly bar his appointment based solely on pending criminal charges. The action of respondents infringes upon the petitioner's rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, denying equal treatment and personal liberty without a fair trial. Moreover, failure to apply the Supreme Court's guidelines in Avtar Singh (Supra) regarding pending criminal cases indicates nothing else but a flawed decision-making on the part of the respondents.

11. The impugned order (08.03.2024) and committee report (01.03.2024) rejecting the petitioner's candidature for the Lower Division Clerk post are thus arbitrary, unreasonable, and lack proper consideration, necessitating judicial intervention herein to quash the same. It is accordingly so ordered. Pertinently, at the time of the job advertisement, no trial proceedings were pending. The respondent's delay deprived the petitioner of a rightful appointment. In any case, pending criminal trial, unless of course proven guilty by way of conviction, cannot bar appointments."

10. Moreover, this Hon'ble High Court in Rahul Khatri v State

of Rajasthan & Anr.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5046/2022

held that mere pendency of criminal proceedings does not amount

to moral turpitude without any conclusive finding of facts or of (Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 05:47:52 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11759] (4 of 4) [CW-21986/2025]

criminal culpability. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced

herein below:

"7. Having heard and perused the record, I am of the opinion that being a matrimonial dispute, same does not in any manner impinge on the nature of duties to be performed by the petitioner. It does not even amount to a moral turpitude without there being any finding of facts and or criminal culpability. At best, the petitioner is merely an under trial and his fate is yet to be governed depending on the outcome of the trial. Furthermore, possibility of a compromise between husband and wife cannot be ruled out at subsequent stage.

9. The action of respondents infringes upon the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution i.e. denying equal treatment and personal liberty without a fair trial. Pertinently, at the time of the job advertisement, no FIR or trial proceedings were pending. The respondent's delay deprived the petitioner of a rightful appointment. In any case, pending criminal trial, unless of course proven guilty by way of conviction, cannot bar appointments."

11. Therefore, the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment

letter dated 27.10.2025 (Annex. 4) on the ground that criminal

proceedings are pending against the petitioner, is not justified.

12. In view of the aforesaid reasons and judicial

pronouncements, the present writ petition is allowed and

impugned order dated 27.10.2025 (Annex.4) is quashed and set

aside. The respondents are directed to offer appointment to the

petitioner and in case the petitioner is convicted of the

aforementioned offences, it will be open for the respondent-

department to take appropriate action at that stage.

13. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of one

month from the date of receipt of this order.