[2025:RJ-JP:43892-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 795/2022 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7008/2019 Bharat Meena Son Of Shri Prahlad Meena, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Village Akbarpura, Tehsil And District Alwar. ----Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Director General Of Police, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 4. Superintendent Of Police, Sriganganagar. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akshit Gupta For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Meena, AGC with Mr. Samee Khan, AAAG and Ms. Epsa Nangalia HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 01/11/2025 1. The issue raised in the present appeal stands finally concluded vide a detailed judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court dated 13.08.2025 wherein, this Court after considering the law as considered in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India: [(2016) 8 SCC 471] and Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P.: [(2024) 5 SCC 264] and subsequent judgments including State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Love Kush Meena [(2021) 8 [2025:RJ-JP:43892-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-795/2022] SCC 774] and Commissioner of Police Vs. Raj Kumar: [(2021) 8 SCC 347] has held that acquittal or compromise as well as non-disclosure of offence of trivial nature cannot be deemed to be fettle for appointment. 2. In the present case, offence are under Sections 323, 341, 143 and 354 of IPC. In the said case, mentioning benefit of doubt, offences being compoundable and trivial in nature, the denial of appointment to the petitioner on the said basis cannot be said to be justified. 3. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment dated 02.03.2022 is set aside and directing the respondent-Department to grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable (General) for which he was selected vide notification dated 25.05.2018. However, the petitioner would be only entitled to notional benefits including pay-scale, seniority and other consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to pass necessary orders within a period of four weeks from today. There shall be no order to costs. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ GAURAV/45