[2026:RJ-JP:20830-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 129/2026 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Superintendent Of Police, Tonk, Rajasthan. ----Appellants/Respondents Versus Bahadur Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Ram Phool, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Sedhri Gujran, Police Station Shop, District Tonk, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 04117320, Category-Sbc). ----Petitioner/Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Samee Khan,AAAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Kabra HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 18/05/2026 1. The appeal preferred by the State is against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 28.04.2025 whereby, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:- “9. Indisputably, petitioner has been honorably acquitted in the criminal case and his appointment is withheld only due to such criminal case, nevertheless, petitioner’s candidature is yet to be considered for appointment by the respondents, as transpires from the letter dated 26.12.2022 issued by the respondent No.2.Thus, respondents are under obligation to consider the candidature of petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable(GD) under his category, taking into consideration the factum that the case of petitioner [2026:RJ-JP:20830-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-129/2026] is not of concealment of criminal antecedent and further, petitioner has been honorably acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case, hence such criminal antecedent may not be treated as impediment to grant him appointment, if petitioner is otherwise eligible and has already been selected on merit. 10. Accordingly, instant writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondents to consider the candidature of petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable (GD) in his category, pursuant to recruitment-2013 and if found eligible, accord appointment to him. Petitioner will be entitled for notional benefits only before getting actual appointment/joining. Needful be done within a period of six weeks.” 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the decision has to be taken by the State with regard to the selection and appointment. 3. We do not find that there is an error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who has directed the appellants to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment. Admittedly, the appellants had withheld his appointment thus, this is not a case where they have rejected the candidature earlier. Once the petitioner has been honorably acquitted in the criminal case, a right is created in his favour to be considered for appointment. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 4. We also find that the appeal is highly belated by 202 days and, on that ground alone, would ordinarily not have been entertained. [2026:RJ-JP:20830-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-129/2026] 5. Be that as it may, since we have heard the matter on merits, the delay is condoned. Accordingly, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed. 6. All pending application(s) also stands disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Simple Kumawat /90