PARMESHWAR LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein has approached this Court through this letter's patent appeal under Sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 read with Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 for assailing the order dtd. 27/1/2022 passed by the learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17449/2019 whereby, the writ petition of the appellant petitioner was dismissed and the order dtd. 18/10/2019 terminating the appellant petitioner from service, was affirmed.

(2.) We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri Kuldeep Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Himanshu Choudhary, and have gone through the impugned order and record of the writ petition.

(3.) The appellant herein applied for selection as a Teacher Grade-III pursuant to the recruitment notification initiated by the District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur. He was selected and appointed on the above post vide appointment order dtd. 3/10/2017. Upon the petitioner having completed two years' probation, his name was recommended for confirmation. However, a notice was issued to the petitioner by CEO, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur on 13/8/2019 with reference to four criminal cases having been lodged against him in Kota and Nagaur. The petitioner filed reply to the notice, stating therein that he had been given benefit of probation in two of the criminal cases whereas, in remaining, he had been acquitted. It was also mentioned that it was clearly stated in the police verification report, that the petitioner had been convicted in two criminal cases and as such, there was no concealment on part of the petitioner warranting his termination. The writ petition of the petitioner was however dismissed by the learned Single Bench of this Court keeping in view the ratio of Hon'ble the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Ors. 2016 (8) SCC 471, observing that even an acquittal from criminal charges does not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment and the employer has a right to consider the antecedents of such candidate and decide whether he is suitable for appointment on the post concerned.