BIRDHI CHAND JAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALTHOUGH the case is listed for orders on stay application, as requested to and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we have heard the case for final disposal. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 14. 3. 1997 made by the learned Single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1367/1997. The appellant applied for the post of a constable-driver pursuant to an advertisement and he did not disclose about the pendency of the criminal case in the application form which was one of requirements. Having found that criminal case was pending against the appellant for the offences under Sections 147, 341 and 323 IPC, he was denied appointment on the ground that he did not disclose about pendency of the criminal case in the application form itself. It appears that subsequently, there was a compromise and he was acquitted. The case was compromised for the offence under Sections 323 and 341 IPC and as far as the offence under Section 147 IPC is concerned, the trial court acquitted him. The writ petition was filed challenging the action of the authorities. The learned Single Judge by the order aforementioned, dismissed the writ petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant before us strongly contended that since the appellant was acquitted, the authorities were not right in denying appointment. In our view, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition. We have taken the same view in similar other appeals, having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Administration vs. Sushil Kumar (1 ). We are not inclined to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the facts of the case should be considered by the authorities before denying appointment. THE facts which are not in dispute in this case on hand, are that the application form contained a column requiring the appellant to disclose about the pendency of criminal proceedings, if any; on the date of filling the application form, criminal proceedings were pending against the appellant; subsequent acquittal is of no consequence in the light of the decision of the Apex Court aforementioned. THE learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Khalid Ahmed In our view this judgment does not help the appellant in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the Delhi Administration case (supra ). In this view, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition. We do not find any good or valid ground to admit this appeal. Hence, it is rejected at the admission stage. .