KAILASH CHAND JAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the arbitrary denial of appointment despite merit in the select list on the post of Constable against the vacancies of 2013.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the Director General of Police issued an advertisement on 14.7.2013 calling for application forms from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Constables in various Districts in the State of Rajasthan under Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereafter 'the Rules of 1989'). The petitioner eligible as per prescribed qualifications applied for the post of Constable in District Jhalawar under the OBC category. He participated in the written examination which he passed. And then found satisfying the requisite physical standards participated in the Physical Efficiency Test - also successfully. On the basis of his merit evaluated as aforesaid the petitioner found place among the meritorious in the select list of those to be appointed as Constable.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that despite his name finding place in the select list, while other candidates in the list were appointed as Constable in District Jhalawar, he was denied the appointment. Enquiries indicated that the reason for the petitioner's exclusion from appointment as Constable despite his being in the select list was his disclosure of a FIR No. 133/2013 against him at Police Station, Bandar Sindri, District Ajmer for offences under Section 323, 341 and 143 IPC for which he has been challaned under charge sheet no. 15/2014 on 29.1.2014 before the Court of ACJM No.2, Kishangarh, District Ajmer. It has been submitted that the pending criminal case against the petitioner, is on account of inter-se disputes between the extended family members and does not partake of any inherent criminality of the petitioner rendering him as an unsavory character and unsuitable for being appointed as a Constable in the Rajasthan Police. Instead the petitioner was so entitled in view of his merit in the select list. It has been submitted that Rule 13 of the Rules of 1989 in fact provides that the circumstances of the conviction should be taken into account and if they involve no moral turpitude or association with crimes of violence or with a movement, which has its object to overthrow by violent means a Government as established by law, the mere conviction need not be regarded as a disqualification. Exclusions of successful applicants where they are alleged to be involved in petty offences without an iota of moral turpitude, moreso when in the background of a family dispute (and which fact has been disclosed alongwith the application forms by the candidates - as the petitioner did) cannot work to the petitioner's disastrous disadvantage and nip his career in police force in the bud and deny him a livelihood.