RAVI PRAKASH BOYAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER belongs to Scheduled Caste category. He, by way of present writ petition, has challenged the action of respondents in declaring him ineligible for appointment on the post of Constable on allegation of concealment of fact of lodgment of criminal case against him, despite his selection for appointment on the post of Constable pursuant to advertisement dated 28.09.2012. The Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, vide letter dated 30.04.2013 informed the petitioner about his selection on the post of Constable and he was called for medical examination on 03.05.2013 along -with the documents. During medical examination and verification of documents, petitioner was asked to submit verification roll/form, which the petitioner filled in correctly. Petitioner even disclosed details of lodgment of criminal case against him for offence under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein he was convicted and released after admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, in Criminal Case No.436/2008 State Vs. Pramod Kumar and Others, vide order dated 07.05.2010. The petitioner also produced copy of order dated 07.05.2010. He also stated that he has been given benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The respondents, on that ground, have denied him appointment on the post of Constable. The selection of the petitioner has been illegally cancelled. The petitioner was fully eligible for appointment.

(2.) IT is contended by learned counsel for petitioner 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 Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act by the concerned Court; and (v) Candidate has been extended benefit of Section 15(1)(a) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the respondents ought to have considered the case of petitioner 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.) 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 and Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6799/2006 along with 19 other writ petitions) and case of the petitioner is squarely covered by aforesaid decision. This Court while disposing of the writ petitions observed as under: