[2025:RJ-JP:14660] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2731/2025 Santosh Raigar S/o Sh. Ramkhiladi Raigar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vpo Baman Baroda, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principle Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Ministry Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Main Building, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 3. Director, Medical Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Swasthya Bahwan, Jaipur. 4. Director, State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare, Jhalana Doongri Colony, Gaht Ki Guni, Jaipur. 5. Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical And Health Department, Rajasthan, Swasthya Bahwan, Jaipur. 6. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Gangapur City, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Chechi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 01/04/2025 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2016 (3) WLC (Raj.) 345, Amrit Pal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13198/2024 and Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2018 (1) SCC 268, and has submitted that [2025:RJ-JP:14660] (2 of 3) [CW-2731/2025] the criminal case cannot be an impediment in appointment of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the said proceedings were of matrimonial nature, which arose on account of marriage which was solemnized in the year 2019 and an FIR qua the dispute inter- se the parties was lodged in the year 2021. It is further submitted that an allegations leveled in the said proceedings, under Section 498-A of IPC, are made on the basis of concocted facts and is a sheer attempt to cause harassment to the petitioner herein. It is also submitted that the trial is ongoing and divorce petition is also pending. It is further submitted that the petitioner is sole bread earner of the family and in spite of being selected as per the merits, his candidature is not being considered for appointment on the said post. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the petition. It is submitted that the matter is criminal in nature and before giving appointment, character verification is absolute, as in the said post, public dealing is involved. Heard and considered the matter. Considering and relying upon the judgment passed in Mukesh Kumar (supra), wherein it is held that merely because a person is facing trial in a case involving offenses under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, he cannot be treated disqualified from being appointed in government service. Howsoever, a rider was imposed therein, that in the event of conviction in the above criminal case, the petitioner may be liable to be terminated from service without holding an enquiry. [2025:RJ-JP:14660] (3 of 3) [CW-2731/2025] With the above observations, the present petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to pass the appointment letter to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of this order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /11