M.N.Bhandari, J. - (1.) PETITIONER is in second round of litigation. First litigation was initiated at the time when petitioner was not held eligible for appointment to the post of GNM. The writ petition was decided in favour of the petitioner holding him to be eligible. Subsequently, respondents denied benefit of appointment in view of pendency of criminal case though mere pendency of the criminal case does not debar a candidate to get appointment. Accordingly, respondents may be directed to consider candidature of the petitioner and to appoint him on the post of GNM. Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand submits that appointment to the post was to be made only on contract basis and it has been denied due to pendency of criminal case.
(2.) I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. I find that Annexure -9 dated 2.3.2010 is not an order for denial of appointment but seeking guideline as to whether a candidate can be given appointment pending criminal case which is arising out of matrimonial dispute and not a case of moral turpitude so as to deny appointment and pendency of the criminal case itself cannot come in the way of the petitioner. In view of the above, respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of GNM on contract basis without holding him to be ineligible due to pendency of the criminal case. The directions aforesaid would be subject to his merit qua others and other eligibility. The compliance of the judgment may accordingly be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.;