[2025:RJ-JP:51873] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4072/2024 Suresh Kumar Meena S/o Gopal Lal Meena, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Meena Ki Dhani, Vpo Basari Khurd, Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of School Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. The Joint Director, School Education, Udaipur Division, Udaipur. 4. The Principal, Govt. Girls Secondary School, Kanera, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini Mr. Aamir Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devansh Sharma, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 19/11/2025 1. Instant Writ Petition is filed with following prayer:- (i) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to render his duties on the post of Sr. Teacher (Social Science) in compliance of appointment order dated 01.03.2024 as well as Joining Report dated 06.03.2024. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be directed not to cancel the appointment order dated 01.03.2024 of petitioner for the post of Sr. Teacher- Social Science on account of pendency of criminal case against the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:51873] (2 of 6) [CW-4072/2024] 2. The facts narrated in the petition in brief are that petitioner was recommended on post of Senior Teacher Grade-II (Social Science) by RPSC, pursuant to recruitment notification dated 05.04.2022. The petitioner was accordingly appointed vide order dated 01.03.2024, and petitioner has joined at Government Girls’ Senior Secondary School, Kanera, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh in Udaipur Division. The petitioner has submitted joining report on 06.03.2024, but due to police verification report, whereby it has come to the notice of the Principal that a criminal case FIR No. 638/2019 dated 20.10.2019 under Section 498-A, 323, 354 and 313 IPC was registered at Police Station Shahpura, District Jaipur (Rural) therefore, the Principal has sought guidance from the Joint Director. The petitioner has filed instant petition as he was not allowed to continue. 3. On 27.03.2024, a co-ordinate bench has passed an interim order directing the respondents not to cancel the candidature of present petitioner and keep one post of Senior Teacher Grade-II (Social Science) vacant. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon order dated 30.07.2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2547/2024, Vishnu Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., and submitted that in identical cases, a co-ordinate bench of this Hon’ble Court has directed the respondents to issue appointment order and allow candidate to join on post, despite the fact that a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC was registered and pending. The counsel has also placed reliance upon order dated 27.11.2024 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13198/2024, Amrit Pal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and order dated 30.07.2024 in Writ [2025:RJ-JP:51873] (3 of 6) [CW-4072/2024] Petition No. 6136/2015, Ranveer Kumar Vs. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. And Ors. and submitted that in identical cases the candidates were permitted to join pursuant to selection through public examination. He also submitted that present petitioner was acquitted from criminal case on 04.11.2024 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, District, Jaipur, and now there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondents and submitted that an appointment order has already been issued but during police verification a criminal case was found registered against present petitioner and now if the petitioner is acquitted then he may submit a representation to the respondent(s) and same shall be considered in accordance with rules. He also placed reliance upon the reply filed by the respondents, and submitted that petitioner has concealed the factum of criminal case. 6. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the reply we are deciding the writ petition on merits at this stage. 7. The controversy raised herein is that present petitioner was appointed by the respondents pursuant to selection process adopted by RPSC but at the time of joining, it has come to the notice during police verification that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner relating to dowry demand. The petitioner has filed an instant writ petition and his candidature is protected by an interim order. The material on record also indicate that till date appointment order has neither been cancelled nor been [2025:RJ-JP:51873] (4 of 6) [CW-4072/2024] withdrawn. There is no record to show that any departmental proceeding or any other proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. During pendency of instant writ petition, the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal court on 04.11.2024 and the order is annexed on record. 8. The material on record clearly indicate that the complainant (who registered criminal case against the petitioner) has entered into a compromise and petitioner was acquitted from charge under Section 406 IPC on the basis of compromise. The judgment dated 04.11.2024 clearly indicate that the complainant, Rajini Devi, was examined as PW-6 and she turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. Similarly, other material witnesses have also turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. Remaining witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution, though they were not declared hostile. The material clearly indicate that the charge is not proved at the time of recording order of acquittal, present petitioner was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. 9. There is no question of benefit of doubt as the complainant has turned hostile and no other witnesses has supported the case of prosecution, thus it was a case of honourable acquittal. The judicial officer presiding the Court probably does not understand the difference between honourable acquittal and acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. The Judicial Officers requires a training by the Rajasthan Judicial Academy as in cases like present one, the words chosen by the trial court may impact and affect the future of an individual. Therefore, in such a situation, it is necessary that the Judicial Officer must know how to use or [2025:RJ-JP:51873] (5 of 6) [CW-4072/2024] articulate words, particularly when there is no evidence or zero evidence, then there has to be an acquittal, not an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt. 10. In case of Ranveer Kumar Vs. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. And Ors. (supra) a Co-ordinate Bench at Principal Seat has considered an issue where a criminal case under Section 447 and 323 of IPC was pending and after considering the provisions related to moral turpitude, has observed that the case appears to have been filed on a trivial issue and it is very common to implicate family members of other party whether they actively participate in the offence or not. The Court has observed that the act of denying appointment on pendency of a criminal case is unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable. Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed and the petitioner-Ranveer Kumar was allowed to continue in service with all benefits. 11. In case of Amrit Pal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) another Co-ordinate Bench considered the issue where a case under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, and 494 of IPC arising out of matrimonial dispute with his wife was registered. The Bench, after considering the judgment in case of Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2016(3) WLC 345 has allowed the petition and directed for issuance of appointment subject to final outcome of the pending criminal case. In case of Vishnu Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (supra), a Coordinate Bench at Jaipur, while placing reliance upon Neeraj Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) has directed appointment of candidate on post of Teacher Level-ll, (Social Studies), where a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC was registered against him. [2025:RJ-JP:51873] (6 of 6) [CW-4072/2024] 12. Having taken note of principle of law as laid down in all above matters it is clear that, without recording any conviction, a person cannot be denied benefit of appointment, if he has been selected pursuant to a public examination process. Here, in this case, the petitioner was acquitted honourably by the trial court and as of now there is no criminal case pending against him. It is also apparent on record that complainant in criminal case has turned hostile and denied the allegations made against present petitioner, which is sufficient to draw a conclusion that the charges in criminal case were found as false, therefore, the respondent(s) are duty bound to consider aforesaid fact brought on record. 13. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the writ petitioner is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to continue in the service pursuant to appointment order dated 01.03.2024 and joining letter dated 06.03.2024 with all benefits for which he is entitled. The petitioner is entitled for all service benefits, available to similarly placed candidates. The petitioner is also entitled for notional benefits from 06.03.2024, till actual joining pursuant to this order. 14. Accordinly, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4072/2024 stands disposed of with pending application(s), if any. 15. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU/116