MOHD. SALEEM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers :-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 1996, the petitioner participated in the process of selection for appointment on the post of Constable.

(3.) Counsel submits that at the time of submission of application form, no criminal case was pending against the petitioner. Counsel submits that after selection of the petitioner, when application form for police verification was given to the petitioner, he disclosed one fact regarding pendency of a criminal case against him. Counsel submits that appointment was not given to any of the selected candidates against whom criminal cases were pending in pursuance of Circular dtd. 29/4/1995. Counsel submits that subsequently the aforesaid Circular was withdrawn by the respondents vide order dtd. 27/7/2001 and one time relaxation was given to such selected candidates against whom the criminal cases were pending. Counsel submits that after passing of the order dtd. 27/7/2001 a list of 114 candidates was prepared for giving appointment. Counsel submits that prior to the issuance of order dtd. 27/7/2001, the petitioner approached this court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3364/1998 and the same was allowed vide order dtd. 10/12/1998 and direction was issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Constable. Counsel submits that against the aforesaid order, the respondents submitted D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 515/1999 and the same was dismissed vide order dtd. 9/7/2001. Counsel submits that the petitioner was offered appointment vide order dtd. 22/11/2002 and all of a sudden, without any notice to the petitioner, appointment of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondents vide impugned order dtd. 3/6/2010. Counsel submits that the petitioner has already been acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment dtd. 26/5/2000. Counsel submits that once appointment was given to the petitioner, he has got a vested right and the said right cannot be snatched by the respondents in violation of the principles of natural justice. Counsel submits that the appointment was not offered to the petitioner in pursuance of the directions issued by this court, rather the same was offered to the petitioner on the basis of a policy decision taken by the respondents by which relaxation was given to the candidates against whom a criminal case was pending. Counsel submits that services / appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled on the basis of judgment dtd. 10/12/2009 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 782/2004 filed by the State respondents against the orders passed by the Single and Division Benches of this court. Counsel submits that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is per incuriam and the services of petitioner cannot be discontinued on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Counsel submits that when appointment has been given to similarly situated 113 candidates, against whom also a criminal case was pending and relaxation was granted to them, then similar treatment should have been given to the petitioner also. Placing reliance on the following judgments, counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this court is warranted :-