KANHAIYALAL MUNDOTIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post Constable General in pursuance of advertisement dated 28.09.2012 with all consequential benefits from the date of other candidates have been given appointment on the said post under the said advertisement.

(2.) Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite petitioner's qualifying written examination, physical efficiency test and medical examination conducted by the respondents for recruitment on the post of Constable General in pursuance of aforesaid advertisement, he has not been given appointment only because at one point of time in the past the petitioner was involved in criminal case for offence under Sec. 341 and 323 IPC, but eventually that matter ended in acquittal of the petitioner on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties vide judgment dated 26.03.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Reengus, District Sikar. It is contended that Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur has issued an order dated 06.08.2014 and according to that order, now the respondents have taken a decision to give appointments to all those candidates, who have disclosed the fact of their involvement in criminal case either in the application form or in the character verification form subject to that (i) Negative final report has been filed against the candidate and the same has been accepted by the concerned court; (ii) Candidate has been acquitted by the concerned Court either by giving benefit of doubt or on account of lack of evidence; (iii) Candidate has been acquitted on the basis of compromise or matter being compounded; (iv) Candidate has been extended benefit of Sec. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act by the concerned Court; and (v) Candidate has been extended benefit of Sec. 15(1)(a) of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondents ought to have considered petitioner's case for appointment in the light of aforesaid order dated 06.08.2014 which has been addressed to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarter, Jaipur/all Superintendents of Police/and Commandants, RAC.

(3.) The controversy involved in this writ petition has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 13.08.2014 passed in Sriram Meena Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6799/2006 along with 19 other writ petitions) and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. This Court while disposing of the writ petitions observed as under: