- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition praying for the following relief:-- 1. The order dt. 22.12.2009 (Annex. 6) may very kindly be quashed and set aside with all its natural consequences; and 2. The respondents may very kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner in the matter of regular selection of S.I., keeping in mind the qualifications/experience he is holding; Facts in brief are that the petitioner claims to be possessed of the requisite qualifications for being appointed appointed on the post of Sub Inspector. At the time of filing of the instant writ petition, he was working on the post of Teacher at the Government Secondary School, 90 RD (Khetawali) District Hanumangarh. A recruitment notification was published by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the year 2007 for filling up the vacancies in the cadre of Sub Inspectors in the Police Department. The petitioner applied for appointment in the recruitment process. He participated in the written and physical tests and was declared successful. He received a interview call letter dated 9.2.2009 and was directed to appear for viva-voce test to be conducted by the Commission on 4.3.2009. After conducting viva-voce, a category-wise list of selected candidates was issued by the authorities for medical examination wherein the petitioner's name appeared at S. No. 106. The petitioner claims that having succeeded in clearing all the hurdles of the selection process, he was eagerly awaiting an appointment order but for a fairly long period of time, he did not receive any intimation. Upon this, he personally approached the authorities for clarification and was informed that the appointment order would be issued shortly. To his utter shock and surprise, the petitioner received an order dated 22.12.2009 informing him that upon character verification a criminal case u/Ss. 498A & 406 I.P.C. was reported to be pending against him and thus he was ineligible to be appointed on the post of Sub Inspector in view of the embargo contained in Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1989). The petitioner claims that the authorities acted in an absolutely arbitrary fashion and against the Rules of 1989 while denying him appointment despite clearing the selection process. The petitioner has further asserted that a totally false and frivolous case for the offences under Sections 406 and 498A I.P.C. was lodged against him by his wife wherein he was unjustly kept in custody for 48 hours and was suspended from service in the Education Department. Later on, he was reinstated. As per the petitioner, the case is totally false and is pending adjudication before competent court and till date no final verdict of guilt has been pronounced and therefore, he cannot be denied appointment on the strength of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1989.
(2.) The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition wherein, it is averred that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for in the writ petition in light of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Administration v. Sushil, 1996 11 SCC 605. Reliance is also placed on a circular issued by the Director General of Police dated 23.3.2006 whereby it was ordained that candidates against whom challan had been filed in a criminal case would not be entitled for appointment in police service despite being acquitted. On the strength of said circular, the respondents have defended the action not to offer appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the reply wherein reliance is placed on a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State & Ors.,2009 WLC(UC) 71 and it is further stressed that the criminal case instituted against the petitioner was malafide and motivated. The petitioner thereafter filed in additional affidavit annexing therewith information received from the respondent department disclosing the names of a few other persons appointed in the police department despite pendency of criminal cases against them.
(3.) Mr. Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that mere pendency of a criminal case could not have been utilized as a ground to deny appointment to the petitioner on the post of Sub Inspector. He relied on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Khama Ram Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 2 WLC(Raj) 702 and submitted that this Court after examining the Rules of 1989 laid down exhaustive guidelines for dealing with the cases of candidates facing criminal cases seeking appointments in the Police Department. He submitted that in the above case, it was held that even concealment by itself in the application form that the applicant was involved in the criminal case should not come in the Way of the appointment of the candidate. He stressed that Rules 13 and 15 of the Rules of 1989 were exhaustively examined by this Court and it was held that conviction of a candidate only in cases of moral turpitude or violence could render him/her disentitled from seeking government employment. He stressed upon the guidelines laid down in para 29 of the judgment wherein it was held that there was no provision in the Rules of 1989 which debars from employment in police service such person who is found involved in a criminal case. He further relied upon the judgments rendered in the cases of Ashu Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,2009 WLC(Raj)(UC) 71, Kunj Behari Meena v. State of Rajasthan, 2010 2 RajLW 1802, Brijendra Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 2 WLC(Raj) 456, Mukesh Kr. Arvind v. State & Anr. being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11643/2008 decided on 17.12.2008, Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, 1978 AIR(SC) 851 in support of his contentions and urged that writ petition deserves acceptance and the petitioner is entitled to be offered appointment on the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the questioned selection process.;