SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that despite petitioner being selected for the post of Patwari pursuant to advertisement dt.11/07/2008 issued by RPSC, but at the stage of his character verification, a report dt.26/03/2010 (Ann.R/1) was sent by Addl.S.P., Special Cell, Jaipur that criminal case upon FIR No.198/2006 dt. 20/07/2006 being registered for offences punishable U/Ss 323, 341, 325, 143, IPC, was pending trial against him before a competent court of jurisdiction, which was considered to be a basis to deny appointment to hold that he was not a man of good character, as conveyed vide impugned letter dt.10/08/2010 (Ann.4) by Secretary (Land Records), Board of Revenue, Ajmer.

(2.) Petitioner was initially appointed in Indian Army on 01/08/1978 and after completion of his tenure, stood retired from army service. To his dismay, FIR-198/2006 dt. 20/07/2006 was registered for offences punishable U/Ss 323, 341, 325 & 147, IPC, because of some family feud. However, since it was a family feud, compromise was arrived at between the parties and offence U/s 147, IPC being not compoundable he was acquitted thereof and for other offences U/Ss 323, 325, & 341, IPC, on the basis of compromise, he was acquitted by competent court of jurisdiction vide judgment dt.03/04/2010 (Ann.5).

(3.) Pendente criminal case against the petitioner, an advertisement was issued by RPSC on 11/07/2008 (Ann.2) for the post of Patwari in Patwar Training School including 135 posts reserved for ex-service for which he being eligible applied, and participated in written examination held by respondent-RPSC and was finally informed that he has been selected for the post for Patwari having merit at S.NO.1214 vide communication dt.03/12/2009 (Ann.3) and was called upon to complete other formalities and his case was sent for character verification - in course whereof, there being a report dt.26/03/2010 (Ann.R/1) of State Special Cell, Police, Jaipur in regard to pending criminal case (FIR No.198/2006 dt.20/07/2006), it was considered to be the basis to hold that he was not a man of good character communicated vide letter dt. 10/08/2010 (Ann.4) & denied for appointment. Hence this petition.