Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post Constable General in pursuance of advertisement dated 28.09.2012 with all consequential benefits from the date of other candidates have been given appointment on the said post under the said advertisement.
(2.) Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite petitioner's qualifying written examination, physical efficiency test and medical examination conducted by the respondents for recruitment on the post of Constable General in pursuance of aforesaid advertisement, he has not been given appointment only because at one point of time in the past the petitioner was involved in criminal case for offence under Section 341 and 323 IPC, but eventually that matter ended in acquittal of the petitioner on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties vide judgment dated 26.03.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Reengus, District Sikar. It is contended that Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur has issued an order dated 06.08.2014 and according to that order, now the respondents have taken a decision to give appointments to all those candidates, who have disclosed the fact of their involvement in criminal case either in the application form or in the character verification form subject to that (i) Negative final report has been filed against the candidate and the same has been accepted by the concerned court; (ii) Candidate has been acquitted by the concerned Court either by giving benefit of doubt or on account of lack of evidence; (iii) Candidate has been acquitted on the basis of compromise or matter being compounded; (iv) Candidate has been extended benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act by the concerned Court; and (v) Candidate has been extended benefit of Section 15(1)(a) of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondents ought to have considered petitioner's case for appointment in the light of aforesaid order dated 06.08.2014 which has been addressed to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarter, Jaipur/all Superintendents of Police/and Commandants, RAC.
(3.) The controversy involved in this writ petition has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 13.08.2014 passed in Sriram Meena v. The State of Rajasthan & Others(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6799/2006 along with 19 other writ petitions) and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. This Court while disposing of the writ petitions observed as under: "In view of above, this Court does not deem it necessary for the present to examine each of these cases on merits and think it appropriate to direct the respondents to have all these matters examined from Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Jaipur and pass appropriate order with regard to appointment of the petitioners, if their case is found to be covered by the aforesaid order dated 06.08.2014 or otherwise give reasons for not granting appointment to the petitioners, within two months from the date of production/receipt of copy of this order. Even in some of the cases if it is found that disclosure was not made, but eventually the petitioner/petitioners has/have been acquitted prior to making application for appointment and selection, the respondents ought to take pragmatic view of the matter as their case in any manner would be at par with those to whom the respondents have now decided to extend the benefit of appointment on account of their case being found covered by any of the aforesaid categories. With the aforesaid observation and direction, all the writ petitions are disposed of. All the stay applications also stand disposed of.";