Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babulal Moond vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 April, 2021
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7892/2020 Babulal Moond S/o Shri Girdhari Moond, Aged About 28 Years, R/ o Village Moondsar, District Bikaner (Raj.).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
2. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary, Bikaner.
3. The Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Napasar, District Bikaner.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratana Ram Khileree For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Choudhary JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Judgment 06/04/2021
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 17.8.2020, whereby he has been declared ineligible on account of pendency of criminal case against him.
2. The facts appertain are that the petitioner applied for the post of Lab Assistant pursuant to recruitment notification dated 9.5.2018. Having cleared written examination and other formalities, the petitioner was offered appointment vide order dated 8.8.2020.
(Downloaded on 07/04/2021 at 08:42:14 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-7892/2020]
3. The petitioner was required to join as Lab Assistant in Government Senior Secondary School, Napasar, Bikaner by 18.8.2020. He was further required to furnish a character certificate issued by the Superintendent of Police, apart from other formalities.
4. In the character certificate/police verification certificate submitted by the petitioner, it was intimated by the Superintendent of Police that, a case under Sections 332, 336 and 353 of the IPC and under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act is pending against him.
5. Such being the position, the respondent No.3 did not allow the petitioner to join and branded him ineligible for appointment vide communication dated 17.8.2020.
6. Mr. Ratana Ram Khileree, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited Court's attention towards the FIR, that has been lodged against the petitioner and while maintaining that the petitioner has been falsely implicated, submitted that the incident took place on the spur of moment, out of sudden outburst and the investigating officer has intentionally roped in the petitioner, along with other family members.
7. He nevertheless maintained that the allegations even if are taken into consideration, are of trivial nature and the petitioner cannot be denied appointment under the Education Subordinate Service Rules,1971.
8. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the coordinate Bench judgment dated 11.2.2019 rendered in the case of Mahendra Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP NO.19152/2018) and submitted that the petitioner is also entitled for appointment and for the aforesaid purpose, he is prepared to (Downloaded on 07/04/2021 at 08:42:14 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-7892/2020] furnish an undertaking as has been ordered by this Court in the case of Mahendra Singh (supra).
9. Mr. Choudhary, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State supporting the order impugned dated 17.8.2020, submitted that the petitioner has indulged in manhandling with the police authorities while on duty and thus, his appointment has rightly been canceled by the respondents.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the order/action of respondent No.3 in issuing order dated 17.8.2020 and declaring him ineligible, that too, without issuing notice, is not only illegal,but also, without jurisdiction. Respondent No.3 can at the best not allow the petitioner to join and refer the matter to District Education Officer for cancelling the selection, if required. He cannot pronounce upon petitioner's eligibility, as he is not petitioner's appointing authority.
11. For the reasons stated above and following the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 and judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mahendra Singh Rathore (supra) and the judgment dated 16.9.2020 rendered in the case of Devid Vikram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.8855/2020), the instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.8.2020 is hereby quashed.
12. The respondents are directed to allot appropriate posting and joining to the petitioner on the post of Lab Assistant, if he fulfills other conditions of the appointment order dated 8.8.2020. (Downloaded on 07/04/2021 at 08:42:14 PM)
(4 of 4) [CW-7892/2020]
13. The petitioner shall appear before the DEO (Headquarter), Secondary, Bikaner on 26.4.2021, who shall provide him fresh positing order; however, upon petitioner's furnishing an undertaking that in case of conviction, the State will be free to take up appropriate proceedings, including cancellation of his appointment or terminating him
14. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential notional benefits from the date of appointment i.e., 8.8.2020.
15. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 21-CPGoyal/-
(Downloaded on 07/04/2021 at 08:42:14 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)