[2026:RJ-JP:1085] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2253/2019 Manish Kumar Meena S/o Ramlal Ji Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Karwal, Tehsil Keshoraipatan, District Bundi, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary (Home), Ministry Of Home Affairs, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Rajasthan, Jaipur. 4. The Superintendent Of Police, Kota City International, District Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Neel Mr. Rohan Gupta Mr. Amogh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parth Sharma for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 08/01/2026 1. The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner with following prayer:- “i. By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable General with all consequential benefits. ii. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondent be directed to grant appointment letter and allow to petitioner to join the service on ground that the [2026:RJ-JP:1085] (2 of 6) [CW-2253/2019] petitioner has been acquitted from the all charges leveled against him. iii. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction the nature thereof thereby, the order dated 19.11.2018 (Annex.8) may kindly be quashed and set aside. iv. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents be directed not to cancel the appointment of the petitioner for the post of Constable General. v. Pass any other appropriate order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner. vi. Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon judgment dated 13.08.2025 in DB Special Appeal Writ No. 971/2022 (Babbal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and others) submits that the controversy raised herein is already settled by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court and the petitioner is entitled for appointment on post of Constable. He further placed reliance upon order dated 19.11.2025 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4072/2024 (Suresh Kumar Meena vs. The State of Rajasthan and others) and order dated 18.12.2025 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4148/2019 (Narendra Singh Rawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) passed by this Court and submitted that the Writ Petition be allowed as the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal case. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and he placed reliance upon the reply and submitted that the petitioner was denied appointment, the acquitted of petitioner was not clean. He also submitted that the petitioner may submit a representation in light [2026:RJ-JP:1085] (3 of 6) [CW-2253/2019] of the judgments as referred by him and the respondents will consider the representation. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has appeared for recruitment on post of Constable for year 2018 and he was qualified in written examination. Thereafter, the petitioner has appeared in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and after passing the PET/PST test, his name stood at Serial No.365 in ST category. The petitioner has overall secured more marks than the last cut-off in his own category. The appointment to Petitioner was denied after Police Verification Certificate as two FIR No. 196/2011 under Sections 323, 341 IPC and FIR No. 34/2015 under Sections 34, 323 and 341 IPC were registered at PS Gendoli, District Bundi. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was acquitted by way of compromise but the respondents have rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the post of Constable (General Duty) on the ground that a criminal case is pending. The petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of three Judges’ Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India : (2016) 8 SCC 471. 6. The short controversy in the instant case is that : Whether registration of a criminal case against the petitioner and thereafter acquittal in criminal case is a sufficient ground to deny appointment on the post of Constable (General)? 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has participated in Constable Recruitment Examination, 2018, pursuant to Recruitment Notification dated 25th May, 2018. After being selected, the [2026:RJ-JP:1085] (4 of 6) [CW-2253/2019] petitioner stood at serial No.365 in the combined merit list for the post of Constable (General Duty), District Kota City. During Police Verification, a certificate dated 01.09.2018 was issued by the Superintendent of Police, District Bundi, certifying overall character as “good” but two criminal cases as FIR Nos. 196/2011 and 34/2015 were found registered at PS Gendoli, Bundi and in both the cases, the present Petitioner was acquitted. After examination by the Office of Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur, an order dated 19.11.2018 is passed on the ground that the petitioner was not cleanly acquitted, so the Petitioner is not entitled for appointment. 8. The material on record indicated that the petitioner was acquitted in regular criminal case No. 369/2015 from offence under Section 341, 323 and 325/34 by way of compromise. This case arises out of FIR No. 34/2015, PS Gendoli, Bundi. An acquittal based on compromise in criminal case is an example of clean acquittal, therefore in one case, the Petitioner was acquitted cleanly by the Criminal Court. 9. No material is placed on record to show disposal of criminal case arising out of FIR No.196/2011, PS Gendoli, Bundi. As per Police Verification Report, the petitioner was acquitted on 17.05.2018 by learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bundi, extending benefit of doubt. The impugned order dated 19.11.2018 indicated that in charge sheet No. 161 dated 18.12.2011 under Section 323, 341 & 324 of IPC, the Trial Court has acquitted the petitioner on 17.05.2012 after extending him benefit of doubt. This indicated that it pertains to FIR No. 196/2011 registered at PS Gendoli, District Bundi. It was duty of the petitioner to place on record the [2026:RJ-JP:1085] (5 of 6) [CW-2253/2019] correct fact on record relating to a criminal case registered as FIR No. 196/2011. A perusal of entire writ petition clearly indicates that the petitioner has not placed on record the judgment of acquittal passed in a criminal case arising out of FIR No. 196/2011, PS Gendoli, District Bundi. The petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment in case of Babu Lal Meena vs. The State of Rajasthan and others : SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2073/2016 decided on 13.02.2017 with bunch of petitions, judgment dated 01.05.2017 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3470/2016 (Anil Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan) decided on the basis of ratio in case of Babulal Meena vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (Supra) and further judgment dated 03.12.2018 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 353/2017 (Kailash Chand Jat vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.) and order dated 18.01.2021 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.8422/2019 : Ravi Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan and others. 10. Having taken note of the circumstances as mentioned herein, it is apparent on record that the petitioner has not filed documents relating to judgment in FIR No. 196/2011 PS Gendoli, District Bundi but the order passed by the respondents indicated that the petitioner was charged for the offence under Section 323, 324 and 341 IPC and wide order dated 17.5.2018, the petitioner was acquitted after extending benefit of doubt. Thus, in this criminal case, the petitioner was not exonerated cleanly and same has to be examined in light of the ratio as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by this Court in the judgments referred hereinabove. Therefore, the writ petition preferred by the [2026:RJ-JP:1085] (6 of 6) [CW-2253/2019] petitioner is liable for disposal in accordance with the ratio laid down in the cases as mentioned hereinabove. 11. The writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 19.11.2018 (Annexure-8) issued by the Office of Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Police is quashed and set aside and the Director General of Police is directed to re-examine the case of present petitioner on the basis of ratio as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Avtar Singh (supra) and also by this Court in cases as referred hereinabove. The examination has to be completed within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and if the petitioner is found eligible for appointment on post of Constable (General Duty) in the category as claimed by the petitioner, then his candidature be considered for appointment on the post of Constable (General Duty), strictly in accordance with merit in the category claimed by the petitioner. 12. Needless to say that if in case of deviation, a reasoned and speaking order be passed under intimation to the petitioner. 13. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/26