GULAB CHAND MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner who is by caste Meena & member of scheduled tribe was a candidate finally selected for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division -cum -Judicial Magistrate) in the selection process initiated through Rajasthan Public Service Commission ("Commission") pursuant to advertisement dt. 19.11.2005 & name of the petitioner finds place at serial No. 47 in the order of select list but he was not finally considered to be suitable for appointment on the premise that for his involvement in unfair means & FIR No. 357/1999 for offence u/S. 3/6 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 ("Act, 1992") came to be registered and on his confession he was convicted by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate -2, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide judgment dt. 20.04.2001, however, he was extended the benefit of Sec.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and was directed to execute bond to the tune of Rs. 2,000/ - along with surety of the same amount to keep peace & good behavior for a period of one year & was also directed to deposit Rs. 200/ - as cost of prosecution. However, there was a mention made by the learned trial Judge in its order that his conviction may not come as disqualification in future while seeking public employment and the select list prepared pursuant to advertisement dt. 19.11.05, indisputably contains name of the present petitioner and the State Government sent the list with its comments to the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur on 05.10.2007 & that contain name of the present petitioner at No. 47 with a note that he has been convicted for offence u/S. 3/6 of the Act, 1992 and the matter was placed before the Full Court and as regards the case of the present petitioner is concerned, after considering the antecedents, character verification & medical, the Full Court declined to give concurrence for appointment in Rajasthan Judicial Service to the present petitioner and sent its report to the State Government vide letter dt. 19.12.2007. It will be appropriate to quote the view of the Full Court referred to/sent to the State Government vide letter dt. 19.12.2007, which reads as under: - -

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the post of Civil Judge Junior Division -cum -Judicial Magistrate is included in the schedule appended to the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 1955 and as regards the character of the candidate is concerned that is to be examined in terms of R. 13 and while list of the selected candidates is sent by the RPSC to the State Government prepared u/R. 19 of the Rules the State Government is supposed to consult with the High Court and thereafter has to take its final decision in acting upon the select list for giving appointment to the selected candidates in terms of R. 21 of the scheme of Rules, 1955.

(3.) Counsel further submits that once the State Government has expressed its view in its letter sent to the High Court dt. 05.10.2007 recording its satisfaction despite the fact he has been convicted under Sec. 3/6 of the Act, 1992 the matter was sent for consultation with the High Court but the final opinion is to be formed by the State Government and no reasons have been assigned even in the communication made to the petitioner as evident from the document dt. 20.02.2008 nor justification has been offered in the reply filed by the State Government and in absence of independent decision being taken, acting upon on the dotted lines in terms of the report sent by the High Court without application of mind is wholly arbitrary & requires interference by this Court.