[2025:RJ-JP:33350] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1262/2013 Narendra Kumar Gurjar S/o Shree Madho Singh Gurjar, aged about 24 years, R/o. VPO Pancholi, The Sirai, Dausa. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (Unit of Rajasthan Government), office at Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur through its Chief Personnel Officer. 2. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. yhrough its Secretary, Old Power House, Hathi Bhata, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Chechi Advocate with Mr. Sumit Khandelwal Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Sharma Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment RESERVED ON :: 22.08.2025 PRONOUNCED ON :: 03.09.2025 1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed non-consideration of his candidature for the post of Technical Helper on the ground of pendency of criminal case. 2. It is submitted that an advertisement was issued by Respondent No. 1-Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter to be referred as ‘JVVNL’) in the capacity of Nodal Agency for inviting applications from all eligible persons for appointment on the post of Technical Helper in three electricity distribution companies, namely, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam [2025:RJ-JP:33350] (2 of 5) [CW-1262/2013] Limited. Pursuant to aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner submitted application form in SBC category (Non-TSP). Written examination took place on 06.11.2011 and after completion of the process of selection, the petitioner was also provisionally selected subject to documents verification. 3. It is contended that the documents verification form along with affidavit was submitted by the petitioner disclosing that one Criminal Case No. 471/2011 for committing offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC was pending against him in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Newai, District Tonk. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely on the ground of pendency of criminal case, the petitioner was not selected whereas at that stage, there was nothing to presume against innocence of the petitioner in the said criminal matter and only on account of pendency of criminal case, on erroneous assumption of guilt, the petitioner ought not have been deprived of his right to get appointment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of instant writ petition, vide judgment dated 23.06.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Newai, District Tonk, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges levelled against him in the said criminal case. Although, after acquittal vide judgment dated 23.06.2023, the petitioner represented Respondent No. 2-AVVNL for permitting him to join on the post of Technical Helper. However, nothing has been done, which has caused serious prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:33350] (3 of 5) [CW-1262/2013] 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that provisional selection pursuant to advertisement issued in the year 2011 was subject to character verification of the respective candidate. In the instant case, a committee was constituted by Respondent No. 1-JVVNL for verification of candidature of provisionally selected candidates and it was found that a criminal case for committing offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC was pending against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that although writ petition was filed by the petitioner in the year 2013 itself, but he has never seriously pursued the writ petition, which is clear by perusing the order sheets of the writ petition wherefrom it would reveal that whenever the matter was taken up, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner and under such circumstances, writ petition was dismissed in default vide order dated 12.05.2016. However, on application filed by the petitioner, the writ petition was restored vide order dated 05.01.2017, yet even thereafter, no efforts were made by the petitioner for getting notices issued in the instant writ petition by making arguments on admission. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents indicated that notices were issued for the first time only on 21.08.2024 and by that time, all the unfilled seats in the recruitment process in question were filled by the respondents by operating reserve list and the recruitment process was over long back. There was no stay in favour of the petitioner and at present, no post is lying vacant, which was advertised in the year 2011. [2025:RJ-JP:33350] (4 of 5) [CW-1262/2013] 7. Learned counsel for the respondents have also submitted that merely acquittal of the petitioner would not create any right, in the facts and circumstances of the case, where selection process was over in the year 2011 itself and acquittal of the petitioner subsequent thereto in the year 2023 would not ipso facto confer any right to him to seek appointment. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Firstly, it is relevant to observe that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and such jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly, only in appropriate cases. 10. In the instant case, for non-consideration by the respondents with regard to recruitment of the petitioner on the post of Technical Helper in the year 2011-12, although writ petition was filed in the year 2013, yet the petitioner, for no good reasons, did not pursue his writ petition seriously and even notices were not issued to the respondent-department till the year 2024. As such, during all these years, the respondents were not even aware of the fact that writ petition has ever been filed by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the respondents completed the recruitment process and closed the same long back. As there was no interim order in favour of the petitioner, no vacancy of the post of Technical Helper advertised in the year 2011 is lying vacant. [2025:RJ-JP:33350] (5 of 5) [CW-1262/2013] 11. In view of above, at this stage, it may not be just and proper to examine the merits of the case. Therefore, the statement made by the petitioner that after eleven years from the date of rejection of his candidature, now he has been acquitted from all the criminal charges in the year 2023, is meaningless in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Now, at this belated stage, no direction, as sought by the petitioner, can be issued to the respondents. 12. In the light of foregoing discussion, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is, hereby, dismissed. 13. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI /