VINEET KOTHARI, J. - (1.) THE petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the refusal of the respondent Police Department to offer him appointment as Constable despite he being selected in the selection process for the year 2010 by passing the written test and physical fitness test, on the ground that upon verification of his antecedents, it was found by the respondent Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur, that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case under Section 142, 432, 379 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and in the trial held by the competent court in Criminal Case No.509/2005 even though all the six accused persons were acquitted upon a compromise between the parties, the petitioner had not disclosed this fact in the Character Verification form even though the petitioner had so disclosed this fact in his initial application for the said job.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed on 14.12.2011 with the following prayers: - "It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed: - A/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the appointment to the petitioner on the post of constable in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14.10.2010 and amended advertisement dated 10.2.2011, and in pursuance of the combined select list dated 29.6.2011 with all consequential benefits. B/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable from 26.8.2011 whereby the similar candidates were given appointment with all service and consequential benefits. C/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, if any adverse order passed against the petitioner without bringing into his knowledge then it may be treated as the part and partial of the writ petition and same may be quashed and set aside. D/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the letter dated 29.4.1995 or any other law excluding the petitioner from the selection process may be quashed and set aside. E/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. F/ Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs." Learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Nupur Bhati, has submitted that the controversy in the present case is actually covered by the decision of a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Rai Sahab Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2013 (3) WLC (Raj.) 485 and the later decisions of the coordinate bench of this Court, in which this Court has held that where the petitioner so selected for the post of Constable in Police Department was acquitted by the competent court, holding the trial against such person, then such person cannot be disqualified for appointment as Constable. She also submitted that in the present case the petitioner had actually made the disclosure of the fact in his initial application and merely because subsequently in the character verification form submitted by him, he mentioned 'No' against the relevant column asking for details of any pending criminal case against him, or whether he was arrested at any point of time in relation to any offence, such stipulation in negative, could not render him disqualified, as otherwise he was duly selected after passing in the written examination as well as physical fitness test.
(3.) DRAWING the attention of the Court towards Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Services Rules, 1989, (1989 Rules, for short), learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that even a conviction by a Court of Law need not by itself involve the refusal of a certificate of good character under the said Rule 13 and unless the offence in which the petitioner was involved, displays moral turpitude, such a candidate cannot be refused appointment under Rule 13 of the 1989 Rules. The Rule 13 of the 1989 Rules, is quoted herein below for ready reference: - "13. Character: - The Character of a candidate for direct recruitment must be such as to qualify him for employment in the Service. He must produce a certificate of good character from the Principal Academic Officer of the University or College or School in which he was last educated and two such certificates, written not more than six months prior to the date of application, from two responsible persons not connected with his School or College or University and not related to him. Notes - (1) A conviction by a Court of Law need not of itself involve the refusal of a certificate of good character. 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. (2) Ex -Prisoners, who by their disciplined life, while in prison and by either subsequent good conduct have proved to be completely reformed, should not be discriminated on grounds of the previous conviction, for purposes of employment in the service. Those who are convicted of offences not involving moral turpitude shall be deemed to have been completely reformed on the production of a report to that effect from the Superintendent, After -care Home or if there are no such homes in a particular district, from the Superintendent of Police of that district. Those convicted of offences involving moral turpitude shall be required to produce a certificate from the Superintendent, After -care Home endorsed by the Inspector General of Prisons to the effect that they are suitable for employment as they proved to completely reformed by their disciplined life while in Prison and by their subsequent good conduct in an After -care Home." ;