[2026:RJ-JP:3772] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2846/2016 Rakesh Kumar Chhilwal Son Of Sitaram Chhilwal (SC), aged about 27 years, VPO Harsora, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary To The Government, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Raja, Jaipur 2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur 3. Jaipur Commissioner Office Rajasthan Police, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, AAAG and Mr. Parth Sharma for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 28/01/2026 1. The instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner with following prayer: “a) By an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature thereof the action of the respondents of not giving appointment to the petitioner for lodging of criminal case may kindly be quashed and set aside. b) By an appropriate writ, order and direction the respondents may be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable (GD) under SC Category on merits under the command and control of the Respondent No.3 with all consequential benefits. c) Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper be [2026:RJ-JP:3772] (2 of 4) [CW-2846/2016] also passed in favour of the Petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner while referring and relying upon judgment dated 13.08.2025 in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.971/2022 titled as “Babbal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. submits that the controversy and the issue raised herein is already settled by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court. He further submitted that instant writ petition be disposed of in accordance with aforesaid order. 3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material placed on record. 4. The issue pertains to recruitment on the post of Constable in Rajasthan Police wherein the petitioner was denied appointment on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case and this fact was mentioned by the petitioner while filling up the application form. 5. An identical issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Babbal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan : DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.971/2022, and also in judgment dated 29.08.2025 in case of Shaitan LaL Kurach Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. :DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.732/2022 and other connected matters. 6. The material on record indicate that FIR No.62/2014 was registered at PS Harsora, District Alwar on 28.03.2014 wherein a charge-sheet has been filed against several persons including present petitioner. Arising out of said FIR, Sessions Case No.5/2015 was disposed by the Court of learned Additional [2026:RJ-JP:3772] (3 of 4) [CW-2846/2016] Sessions Judge, Bansur, Alwar on 06.08.2021 whereby the present petitioner was acquitted on basis of compromise from charges under Sections 341, 323, 325 read with Section 149 IPC but was acquitted from charges under Sections 452, 147, 336, 308/149 of IPC after benefit of doubt. The material on record indicate that 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and all material witnesses including complainant and injured turned hostile and not supported the story of prosecution. The trial Court has opined that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges but still given benefit of doubt to the petitioner-accused. 7. Considering the material placed on record and also the ratio as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Shaitan LaL Kurach Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors(supra) and Babbal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), it is appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation with direction to the respondent(s) to examine the case of present petitioner in light of ratio laid down in aforementioned cases. 8. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is hereby allowed and the petitioner is directed to file a representation within a period of 30 days from date of receipt of copy of this order with all relevant details including copy of charge-sheet, record relating to prosecution evidence and judgment for examination by respondent(s) for applicability of ratio as laid down in cases of Shaitan LaL Kurach Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) and Babbal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra). [2026:RJ-JP:3772] (4 of 4) [CW-2846/2016] 9. If respondent(s) finds that the ratio is applicable upon the facts as claimed by the petitioner then the respondent(s) shall consider the benefits as directed by the Division Bench of this Court in aforementioned cases, in particular, appointment on the aforementioned post. 10 . The present writ petition with pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 11. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/34