SANJEEV KUMAR CHARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Charan was selected for appointment on the post of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. However, he was not given appointment in view of the adverse police report. According to police record petitioner has been involved in theft cases. His photograph appears in the album of persons of criminal antecedents, kept at Police Station GRP, Jodhpur. In two cases, wherein petitioner alleged to have committed theft of the articles of foreigners in Train, challan for offence under Section 379 I. P. C. was filed in Court against him.

(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner has been acquitted in both the cases, as such the adverse police report could not be a ground for refusing the appointment. IT is also submitted that two other candidates namely Miss Rekha Choudhary and Sunil Yadav who were also tried for criminal cases have been given appointment. Thus, according to the petitioner it is the case of hostile discrimination.

(3.) RULE 13 of the Rajasthan Judicial Services provides that the character of a candidate for direct recruitment on the service must be such as will qualify him for employment in the service. Further RULE 21 provides that on receipt of the list prepared by the Commission under RULE 19, the Governor shall consult the Court and shall after taking into consideration the views of the Court and subject to the other provisions of these rules, select candidates for appointment in substantive, temporary and officiating vacancies from among those who stand highest in order of merit in the said list provided, he is satisfied that such candidates are duly qualified in other respects. Thus, the appointment in the cadre of RJS is made by His Excellency the Governor in consultation with the Board that is the High Court. Before an appointment is made the Appointing Authority is to be satisfied that such a candidate is duly qualified in other respects.