MADAN LAL JAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Constable (R.A.C.) along with all consequential benefits. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to an advertisement published in the newspaper for filling up certain posts of Constables, the petitioner applied for the said post. A permission letter was issued to him for appearing in the written examination. The petitioner was declared successful and the result of the written examination was published in the daily Rajasthan Patrika in its Udaipur edition dated 15.9.1996. The petitioner, thereupon appeared in the Physical Efficiency Test and Viva -voce/interview on 2.11.1996 before the fourth respondents. A list of 17 provisionally selected candidates including the petitioner was published by the fourth respondents on 2.11.1996 on the notice board that the name of the petitioner was shown at No. 1 in the said selected list. The Commandant of XIIth Bn. (R.A.C.) sent a letter to the police station Kapasan for character verification of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, a compromise took place between the parties in the aforesaid criminal cases and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges in those cases vide order dated 19.11.1996 (Annexures 4 to G). It is the case of the petitioner that on 19.11.1996 itself, the petitioner submitted an application to the Station House Officer, Police Station Kapasan along with certified copies of the order dated 19.11.1996 passed in the criminal cases and requested for his character verification. The police station sent a report to the Superintendent of Police Chittorgarh on i9.11.1996 mentioning therein the three cases are pending against the petitioner vide FIR No. 39 -1/1995, 331/1996 and 321/1996 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan u/S. 447 and 427 IPC. In his turn, the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh vide his letter dated 22.11.1996 informed the fourth respondent regarding pendency of the above cases against the petitioner. Since, the petitioner did not receive any appointment letter for the post of Constable inpursuance of his selection dated 2.11.1996, the petitioner contacted the respondents on various occasions and (hereupon he sent a notice of demand for justice (Annex. 8) to the respondents Nos. 2 to 4. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner filed some documents vide Annex. 1 to 8. Inspite of the notice of demand for justice, the respondents did not pay any head to the notice, therefore, the petitioner has filed the above writ petilion with a prayer to direct the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner on the post of Constable (RAC) along with other consequential benefits.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to 'the Rules of 1989') provides that persons getting appointments in the service should not be of a bad character or convicted by a competent court of law in the criminal case involved moral turpitude. According to the petitioner, pendency of the criminal cases against him does not involve moral turpitude and should not be a ground to deny appointment.

(3.) ACCORDING to the respondents, the petitioner has concealed certain material facts from the respondents in as much as in the application form submitted by him in Column No. 17, which reads thus: - .........[vernacular ommited text]...........