RAJESH HARIJAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing order dt. 13.09.2011 (Annex. -3) and to issue direction to the respondents to given appointment to the petitioner. Undisputedly, the petitioner was selected for the post of Constable in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents in pursuance of the vacancies advertised in the session 2008 -09 and, after selection, the petitioner was selected for the post of Constable but appointment was denied to the petitioner on the ground that upon character verification it is found that a criminal case No. 67/2000 was registered against the petitioner for offences under Secs. 323, 324, 324/34, I.P.C. at Police Station Kanore, in which he was found guilty but while giving benefit of probation he was released vide judgment dt. 8.8.2011.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment delivered in the case of Rai Sahab v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2013 (2) RLW 1714, in which, this Court has held that if candidate is not involved in any offence relating to moral turpitude and acquitted on the basis of compromise, then, he is required to be considered for appointment and, in this case, the petitioner was not involved in any case of moral turpitude; but for offences under Secs. 323, 324, 324/34, I.P.C. he was held guilty but given benefit of probation, therefore, the respondents cannot deny appointment to the petitioner in view of Sec. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, Therefore, directions may be issued to the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner -ignoring the fact that the petitioner was convicted but released on probation under Sec. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

(3.) IN support of his contention, the respondents counsel invited attention of the Court towards the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh, reported in : (2013) 7 SCC 685, and submits that according to the aforesaid judgment the petitioner is not entitled for appointment.