Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: "A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 15.05.2015 (Annex.8) and any order denying the appointment/reinstatement of the services of the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade-III in pursuance of the advertisement year, 2013 and appointment order dated 19.03.2013 (Annex.2) may kindly be quashed and set aside. B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner for his reappointment/reinstatement for the post of Teacher Grade-III as applied in pursuance of the advertisement year 2013. C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to afford reappointment/reinstatement to the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade-III as applied in pursuance of the advertisement year, 2013 and as per appointment order dated 19.03.2015 with all consequential benefits from the date when similarly situated persons were appointed. D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to not to deny the appointment/reinstatement to the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade-III on the ground of Criminal case lodged against him."
(2.) The brief facts as noticed by this Court are that the petitioner has participated in the selection process of Teacher Grade-III. The appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 19.03.2015 while directing him to join at Government Primary School, Dugripada, Chotipadal, Panchayat Samiti Ghalot, District Banswara. The petitioner joined the same post but his services were terminated on 15.05.2015 due FIR No.187/2014 registered at Police Station Khamera, District Banswara.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner makes limited prayer that his representation may be considered in light of the direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.20525/2011 (Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Ors. decided on 21.07.2016) , in which following directions were given: "30. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus: (1) Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. (2) While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. (3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. (4) In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted:- (a) In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. (b) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. (c) If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. (5) In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. (6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. (7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. (8) If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. (9) In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. (10) For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such case action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. (11) Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.";