Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ajay Kumar Meena S/O Sh. Jagmal Meena vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 April, 2019
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1799/2019
Ajay Kumar Meena S/o Sh. Jagmal Meena
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vinod Kumar Sharma. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Harshal Tholia for Dr.V.B. Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Order 16/04/2019 The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana [(1985)4 SCC 417] has held that justice is not the function of the courts alone, it is also the duty of other state functionaries when expected to take decision on matters before them. The obligation to do justice therefore attaches to every organ of the State. And in fact if it were no so, the court's could be choked and the citizens left gasping for their rights--a wholly untenable and frightening situation which cannot come to pass or be countenanced.
This Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Others SBCWP No.1018/2019 decided on 24.1.2019 has held that where a candidate when as a juvenile has (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 01:05:19 AM) (2 of 3) [CW-1799/2019] been prosecuted for a criminal offence but acquitted, his criminal past cannot be a ground for denial of his appointment as a Constable despite such candidate's selection after due process.
The additional argument proffered by Mr.Harshal Tholia however was that the petitioner had suppressed the factum of his past prosecution albeit as a juvenile in not disclosing it in his application form. He submitted that such suppression operates as a drag on the petitioner's right to appointment even though he was acquitted well before the commencement of recruitment for the post of Constable. However in making the aforesaid submission, Mr.Harshal Tholia overlooks the binding nature of the Apex Court's dictum in para 38.4 and 38.4.1 in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Others [(2016)8 SCC 471] which read as under:-
38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted:
38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 01:05:19 AM) (3 of 3) [CW-1799/2019] discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse..
Before proceeding further with this petition, I would require I.G. (Recruitment), Rajasthan in the context of the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana (supra) and judgment of this Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra) to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Constable with reference to its overall facts particularly that it may be rather harsh and unjust to deny the petitioner, already selected as a Constable, appointment as Constable on the ground of his failing to disclose the factum of his earlier involvement in a criminal case in which was he tried as a juvenile but acquitted honorably vide order dated 24.8.2011. The IG (Recruitment) should also consider how in the overall facts to Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 sits with the denial of appointment to the petitioner.
Put up on 8.5.2019 at 11:00 AM.
ALOK SHARMA), J Himanshu Soni/22 (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 01:05:19 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)