[2026:RJ-JP:433] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5517/2003 Rewant Ram Godhara, aged about 48 years, S/o Shri Kana Ramji, R/o C/o Shri Banshi Dhar Sharma, Bikaner Rajhans Hotel, Near Polovictory, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Bikaner. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy. G.C with Mr. Shubham Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 07/01/2026 1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.09.1978 whereby, the petitioner was discharged from service on account of committing forgery in the birth certificate. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was appointed on the post of Constable on 24.07.1976, however, only two years thereafter, on the ground of making changes in the document relating to date of birth, services of the petitioner were terminated. He further submits that on the basis of similar charges, one FIR was lodged against the petitioner however, after conducting full-fledged trial, the petitioner was acquitted by the Competent Criminal Court vide judgment dated 12.02.1987. [2026:RJ-JP:433] (2 of 4) [CW-5517/2003] Thereafter, on 30.01.2003, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents mentioning therein that since, he has been acquitted from the criminal charges by the Competent Criminal Court therefore, he should be reinstated back in service and when no action was taken, legal notice dated 01.03.2003 was served upon the respondents, which was also not responded by them. Hence, the writ petition has been filed challenging the termination order dated 29.09.1978 with further prayer of reinstatement and other consequential benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and objected that the termination order dated 29.09.1978 has been put to challenge by the petitioner by way of the present writ petition in the year 2003. Thus, there is hopeless delay of 25 years in filing the instant writ petition therefore, on this ground, the petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that even otherwise, mere acquittal from the criminal charges would not confer eligibility with regard to the date of birth upon the petitioner hence, even on merits also, he is not entitled to be reinstated back in service. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Bare perusal of the facts would make it clear that on account of making forgery in the documents relating to date of birth, so as to make himself eligible for consideration on the post of Constable, petitioner was discharged from service vide order dated 29.09.1978. 6. Contentions of the petitioner is that on identical allegations, FIR was lodged against him and after trial, he has [2026:RJ-JP:433] (3 of 4) [CW-5517/2003] been acquitted by the trial Court. In this regard, it is sufficient to observe that mere acquittal on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, would not make the petitioner eligible with regard to his age for consideration on the post of Constable. The reason for his discharge from service was that for making himself eligible for consideration for appointment on the post of Constable, changes have been made by way of forgery in the date of birth in documents. Thus, the acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment dated 12.02.1987 also does not make the petitioner eligible for appointment on the post of Constable. 7. Even otherwise, when the petitioner was acquitted in the year 1997 by the Competent Court even then, he kept silence and did not approach the respondents or to any Court for seeking his reinstatement and first time, he submitted a representation on 30.01.2003 i.e. after 16 years from the date of his acquittal by the Competent Court. Thus, it is clear that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner after a lapse of 16 years from the date of his discharge from service and after 10 years from the date of his acquittal by the Criminal Court and no sufficient explanation has been given in memo of writ petition for approaching this Court after such a long delay. It is settled proposition of law that the stale claims cannot be entertained by this Court while exercising equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As stated hereinabove, otherwise also on merits, the petitioner has utterly failed to make any case of interference in the writ petition. [2026:RJ-JP:433] (4 of 4) [CW-5517/2003] 8. In view of above, there is no substance in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and it is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/32