RAI SAHAB Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The core issue, which requires judicial scrutiny in this petition, is whether "honourable acquittal" of an individual for an offence attributed to him can be insisted by the employer to facilitate his appointment after due selection and what are the legal attributes of the term "honourable acquittal"? Character of someone is vital for adjudging his suitability for the job. Louis Nizer has rightly summed up the "character" in these lines:

(2.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is laid by the petitioner for assailing the impugned order dated 13 th of April 2012 (Annex.6) with a prayer to quash the same. Apart from the relief of besetting the impugned order, the petitioner has also sought a direction against the respondents to declare him suitable for the post of Constable and offer him appointment on the said post pursuant to his selection which was made as per Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1989'). Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that in the year 2010 process for recruitment on the posts of Constables was initiated by the respondents in adherence of the Rules of 1989 vide advertisement dated 14 th October 2010. Being eligible for direct recruitment, the petitioner offered his candidature for selection and he was adjudged suitable. As per the petitioner, he has also qualified the physical fitness test and his name figures at Serial No. 28 in the select list. Pursuant to the selection, the petitioner was asked to submit relevant documents vide letter dated 16 th July, 2011 (Annex.5). After submission of the documents, the petitioner received a communication dated 13th April 2012 (Annex.6), whereby he was declared unsuitable for the job by citing the reason that in criminal case No.182 of 2005 under Sections 341, 323 and 34 Indian Penal Code his acquittal was not honourable. In substance, in the impugned communication, it is clarified that taking into account the character and antecedents of the petitioner, he cannot be offered appointment on the post of Constable. Calling in question the communication (Annex.6), the petitioner has urged in the writ petition that the same is absolutely arbitrary and unreasonable. He has further attacked the communication Annex.6 on the anvil of it being a consequence of non-application of mind without considering the intent of Rule 13 & 14 of the Rules of 1989. While referring to the memorandum issued by the department dated 29th of April 1995, the petitioner has averred in the writ petition that he has not concealed any material information while applying for the job nor he was involved in any offence involving moral turpitude and as such the communication is not sustainable. While taking a dig at the phraseology employed in the memorandum "acquitted honourably", the petitioner has narrated in the writ petition that the memorandum has not been interpreted properly and looking to the petty offences, which were attributed to the petitioner, denial of appointment to him is bad in law.

(3.) The writ petition is contested by the respondents and reply to Show Cause Notice was submitted. While stoutly defending the impugned communication, the respondents have urged in the reply that acquittal of the petitioner for the offences under Section 323, 341 and 34 IPC was by way of compromise which means that the petitioner has admitted his guilt and as such the same cannot be construed as "honourable acquittal". Laying stress on the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Administration Vs. Sushil Kumar, 1996 11 SCC 605, the respondents have submitted in the reply that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to the post under the State. In the return, the respondents have also referred to the judgment of Apex Court in case of R. Radhakrishnan Vs. Director General of Police, 2008 1 SCC 660. As per the version of the respondents in the reply, the petitioner was denied appointment for the reason that he was involved in the act of violence and his acquittal was by way of compromise and it was not an honourable acquittal. Joining the issue with the petitioner on construction of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1989, the respondents have averred in the reply that the petitioner has misconstrued Rule 13 of the Rules of 1989. Emphasizing the memorandum dated 29 th of April 1995 issued by the Director General of Police, the respondents have submitted in the reply that any candidate involved in violence is not eligible for appointment in the disciplined forces.