RAMESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 13/2/2018 (Annex.P/5), whereby, the petitioner has been found ineligible for appointment on the post of Constable.

(2.) The petitioner applied for the post of Constable pursuant to the advertisement of 2013. Based on his performance at the written examination and Physical Standard Test/Physical Efficiency Test (PST/PET), the petitioner was selected and was placed in the waiting list in the category of OBC. Thereafter, police verification was conducted in which it was indicated that there was a criminal case against the petitioner in which F.R. was given and on protest (2 of 6) [CW-3862/2018] petition filed by the complainants, the F.R. was not accepted and cognizance has been taken against the nine accused persons under Section 147, 447, 427 and 323 IPC and by non-bailable warrants they have been summoned by the court of ACJM, Phalodi. Based on the said police verification report, the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur (Rural), by his order dated 13/2/2018 (Annex.P/5) came to the conclusion that the petitioner in the application as well as in verification form concealed the fact of criminal case, he has not been acquitted by the court honourably, the offence for which the petitioner underwent trial was not trivial in nature and as such he was not eligible for appointment.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the police verification report dated 26/4/2017 was submitted, the petitioner by judgment of the trial court dated 12/9/2017 (Annex.P/8) was acquitted along with other accused. Submissions have been made that while passing the order impugned, qua the judgment only observation made was that the petitioner was not acquitted honorably by the trial court, which cannot be a reason for denying appointment to the petitioner. Submissions have also been made that the judgment in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. : (2016) 8 SCC 471 has been mechanically relied on by the respondents and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.