MUKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition praying for the following relief:--

(2.) The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition wherein, it is averred that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for in the writ petition in light of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Administration v. Sushil, 1996 11 SCC 605. Reliance is also placed on a circular issued by the Director General of Police dated 23.3.2006 whereby it was ordained that candidates against whom challan had been filed in a criminal case would not be entitled for appointment in police service despite being acquitted. On the strength of said circular, the respondents have defended the action not to offer appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the reply wherein reliance is placed on a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State & Ors.,2009 WLC(UC) 71 and it is further stressed that the criminal case instituted against the petitioner was malafide and motivated. The petitioner thereafter filed in additional affidavit annexing therewith information received from the respondent department disclosing the names of a few other persons appointed in the police department despite pendency of criminal cases against them.

(3.) Mr. Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that mere pendency of a criminal case could not have been utilized as a ground to deny appointment to the petitioner on the post of Sub Inspector. He relied on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Khama Ram Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 2 WLC(Raj) 702 and submitted that this Court after examining the Rules of 1989 laid down exhaustive guidelines for dealing with the cases of candidates facing criminal cases seeking appointments in the Police Department. He submitted that in the above case, it was held that even concealment by itself in the application form that the applicant was involved in the criminal case should not come in the Way of the appointment of the candidate. He stressed that Rules 13 and 15 of the Rules of 1989 were exhaustively examined by this Court and it was held that conviction of a candidate only in cases of moral turpitude or violence could render him/her disentitled from seeking government employment. He stressed upon the guidelines laid down in para 29 of the judgment wherein it was held that there was no provision in the Rules of 1989 which debars from employment in police service such person who is found involved in a criminal case. He further relied upon the judgments rendered in the cases of Ashu Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,2009 WLC(Raj)(UC) 71, Kunj Behari Meena v. State of Rajasthan, 2010 2 RajLW 1802, Brijendra Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 2 WLC(Raj) 456, Mukesh Kr. Arvind v. State & Anr. being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11643/2008 decided on 17.12.2008, Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, 1978 AIR(SC) 851 in support of his contentions and urged that writ petition deserves acceptance and the petitioner is entitled to be offered appointment on the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the questioned selection process.