[2025:RJ-JP:36623] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7624/2024 Pavan Kumar Swami S/o Sh. Madan Mohan Swami, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Toda Thekala, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2. Director General, CRPF, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 3. Deputy Inspector General Of Police GC-I, CRPF, Golf Course Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Sinha CGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 10/09/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 30.03.2024 issued by the Deputy Inspector-CRPF, whereby, despite selection of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector/Stenographer the selection has been canceled, on account of the fact that pursuant to FIR No. 99/2020 lodged at Police Station Mandawari, Lalsot (Dausa), the police authority filed a charge-sheet under Section 143, 323, 341 & 447 of IPC, which was pending for consideration of the Criminal Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per signal message dated 14.03.2024, the petitioner was not considered only for the reason that the allegations against him in [2025:RJ-JP:36623] (2 of 3) [CW-7624/2024] the said FIR were relating to Section 447 of IPC, which comes under the purview of moral turpitude. He further submits that after hearing the petitioner-accused in respect of aforesaid criminal case, which was totally private in nature and no official misconduct or offence was involved therein the learned Additional District Judge, Lalsot, Distt. Dausa, vide its order dated 07.01.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 20/2024, has discharged the petitioner from the charges under Section 447 of IPC. After discharge of the petitioner from the aforesaid offence under Section 447 of IPC, which was considered as moral turpitude by the respondents, there is no embargo for considering the case of the petitioner for appointment, and till today, the trial in respect of other minor offences is pending before the Competent Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the employer has every right to examine the antecedents and character of the candidate who appeared in recruitment process, more particularly, the respondent-CRPF being a disciplined force is expected to recruit only disciplined candidate. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that even after discharging of the petitioner from the charges under Section 447 of IPC, he does not acquire any vested right to seek appointment as the trial regrding other charges are still pending against the petitioner. 4. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and considered the record. 5. It reveals from signal message dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure-CA-2) that the only reason for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner was pendency of the case under [2025:RJ-JP:36623] (3 of 3) [CW-7624/2024] Section 447 against the petitioner. As stated hereinabove, the petitioner has been discharged from the charges under Section 447 of IPC. Even otherwise, at the stage of pendency of a criminal case, presumption of guilt cannot be drawn against a candidature. However, in the light of directions given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2018 (1) SCC 268, the respondent-Government can examine the candidature of the candidate, even after his acquittal from criminal charges as stated in the light of directions given in para 38 of the aforesaid judgment. 6. In the light of foregoing discussion as well as in view of the guidelines given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), this Court deems it just and proper and direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with order of discharge by the Competent Court, and the respondents are directed to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner have already been discharged from the charges under Section 447 of IPC, and to pass a speaking order within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, the respondents considers the petitioner suitable for appointment, the appointment order be issued along with all consequential benefits. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with above directions. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/87