[2025:RJ-JP:17862] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12886/2016 Bahadur Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Ram Phool aged about 25 years, R/o Village Sedhri Gujran, Police Station Shop, District Tonk, Rajasthan. (Roll No.04117320, Category- SBC) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Superintendent of Police, Tonk, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Kabra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Swami for Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 28/04/2025 1. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the material placed on record. 2. The issue is in respect of withholding the appointment of petitioner on the post of Constable (GD), pursuant to recruitment- 2013, on account of disclosure of involvement of petitioner in a criminal case arising out of FIR No.51/2015 at Police Station- SOP, District Tonk. 3. It is not in dispute that in the recruitment process for the post of Constable (GD), petitioner has been shortlisted in the final select list at Serial No.162, for appointment on the post of Constable (GD) in District Tonk in SBC (Male) category, but since before according appointment, petitioner himself disclosed about registering of an FIR and filing of charge sheet therein as well against him on 28.07.2016 for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 325, 326, 341, 427 & 447 IPC, the appointment of petitioner was withheld by respondents, hence petitioner preferred instant writ petition on 12.09.2016. [2025:RJ-JP:17862] (2 of 4) [CW-12886/2016] 4. It has further been emerged as an undisputed fact that after full fledged trial of the above referred criminal case, petitioner has been acquitted from the charges, giving benefit of doubt, vide judgment dated 17.11.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk in Sessions Case No. 01/2017: State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramphool & Ors., and thereafter, on filing SB Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.2653/2023 by the petitioner, the High Court vide order dated 03.08.2023 modified the acquittal of petitioner due to lack of prosecution evidence, to be treated as “clean acquittal”. 5. On behalf of respondent No. 2- Superintendent of Police, Tonk, a letter dated 26.12.2022 has been issued, which has been placed on record by the petitioner. For ready reference, letter dated 26.12.2022 is being reproduced as under:- dk;kZy; iqfyl v/kh{kd] ftyk Vksad ¼jkt0½ Øekad%& 210057-58 fnukad%& 26@12@2022 izsf"kr%& Jh cgknqj flag xqtZj iq= jkeQwy xqtZj jksy ua- 04117320 fuoklh%& lsnjh xqtjku iksLV eksgEeniqjk rglhy mfu;kjk] ftyk VksadA ekQZr%& Fkkukf/kdkjh lksiA fo"k;%& dkfu0 HkrhZ 2013 esa p;fur fdUrq vkijkf/kd izdj.k esa fyIrrk ds dkj.k fu;qfDr ls ofapar vH;FkhZ ds laca/k esaA lnHkZ%& vkids izkFkZuk i= fnukad 23-11-2022 ds Øe esaA mijksDr lanfHkZr izkFkZuk i= ds fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd dkWULVscy HkrhZ 2013 esa p;fur fdUrq vkids fo:) ,d eqdnek la[;k 51@15 fnukad 17-07-2015 dks Fkkuk lksi ij /kkjk 147]148]149]307]323]341]427]447 vkbZ-ih-lh- esa ntZ gksuk ik;s tkus ds dkj.k dkfu0 in ij fu;qfDr iznku ugha dh xbZ FkhA mDr vkijkf/kd izdj.k esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk nks"keqDr fd;s tkus ij U;k;ky; fu.kZ; dh izfr yxk dj dkfu0 in ij fu;qfDr pkgus ckcr izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj fuosnu fd;k FkkA vkids izkFkZuk i= dks bl dk;kZy; }kjk vfxze dk;Zokgh gsrq iqfyl eq[;k;ky vxzsf"kr fd;k x;k FkkA vkids izkFkZuk i= ds lanHkZ esa iqfyl v/kh{kd ¼HkrhZ ,oa inksUufr cksMZ½ jktLFkku t;iqj us muds i= Øekad ua&5¼94½ iq-Qks-@dkfu- HkrhZ&13@2015@2454 fnukad 22-12-2022 ds }kjk funsZf’kr fd;k gS fd vkids }kjk nk;j ,lch flfoy fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 12886@2016 ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gSA mDr ;kfpdk esa fu.kZ; ikfjr gksus ds mijkUr gh izdj.k ij fopkj fd;k tk;sxkA ¼Hkokuh flag jkBkSM½ vfrfjDr iqfyl v/kh{kd] Vksad d`rs iqfyl v/kh{kd ftyk Vksad [2025:RJ-JP:17862] (3 of 4) [CW-12886/2016] As per this letter, candidature of petitioner for appointment is sub judice with respondents and shall be considered after deciding the present writ petition. 6. 6. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner’s case is not of concealment of criminal antecedent since the above-referred FIR came to be registered after selection process is over and when shortlisting of petitioner in the final merit list has been done, but before granting appointment to him and further indeed petitioner was wrongly implicated in the aforesaid criminal case, wherein after full fledged trial, he has been acquitted and further his acquittal has been clarified as “clean acquittal” by the High Court, hence in such circumstances, on account of such false criminal antecedent, petitioner cannot be denied appointment on the post of Constable (GD) in his category in District Tonk, once he has finally been selected on merits. Counsel for petitioner has referred and relied upon following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:- (i) Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471]; (ii) Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India [(2023) 12 SCC 317] & (iii) Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. [(2024) 5 SCC 264]. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Avtar Singh (Supra) in Para No.38.4.3, held and observed as under:- “38.4.3. 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.” 8. The parameters enunciated in case of Avtar Singh (Supra), have been followed and reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of [2025:RJ-JP:17862] (4 of 4) [CW-12886/2016] Pawan Kumar Sharma (Supra) & Ravindra Kumar (Supra), recognizing the principle that employer should scrutinize each case thoroughly and should exercise power in a reasonable manner with objectivity. The candidate has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily. 9. Indisputably, petitioner has been honorably acquitted in the criminal case and his appointment is withheld only due to such criminal case, nevertheless, petitioner’s candidature is yet to be considered for appointment by the respondents, as transpires from the letter dated 26.12.2022 issued by the respondent No.2. Thus, respondents are under obligation to consider the candidature of petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable (GD) under his category, taking into consideration the factum that the case of petitioner is not of concealment of criminal antecedent and further, petitioner has been honorably acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case, hence such criminal antecedent may not be treated as impediment to grant him appointment, if petitioner is otherwise eligible and has already been selected on merit. 10. Accordingly, instant writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondents to consider the candidature of petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable (GD) in his category, pursuant to recruitment- 2013 and if found eligible, accord appointment to him. Petitioner will be entitled for notional benefits only before getting actual appointment/ joining. Needful be done within a period of six weeks. 11. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/S-291