Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Suresh Kumar Swami vs State Of Raj And Ors on 4 February, 2019
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11117/2017
Suresh Kumar Swami S/o Shri Deokaran
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and Others
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vigyan Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Ganesh Meena, AAG.
Mr.M.F. Baig, for RPSC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Order
04/02/2019
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 and it is also the duty of other state functionaries who are expected to take decision on matters before them as the obligation to do justice attaches to every organ of the State.
In the instant case, the petitioner was selected for appointment as School Lecturer in the subject of Political Science vide order dated 11.6.2017. He was not allowed to join on the said post by the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School (2 of 5) [CW-11117/2017] Dari, District Pali for pendency of a criminal prosecution for offences under Sections 323 and 341 IPC. Thereafter the petitioner's appointments was cancelled vide order dated 31.10.2017 under the hand of the Director, Secondary Education, apparently for the reasons that the petitioner had not joined on the post overlooking that he was prevented by the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Dari from so doing on the ground of being prosecutions in a criminal case for offences under Sections 323 & 341 IPC arising from a farcas in a family dispute with his brother. The prima facie injustice of the situation is shocking in view of Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 (hereafter 'Rules of 1970') which deals with the character of the candidate to be appointed Note-1 of the Rule 12, reads as under:-
Note- 1:- A conviction by a Court of Law may not in itself involve the refusal of a certificate of good character. The circumstances of the conviction would be taken into account and if they involve no moral turpitude or association with crimes of violence or with a movement, which has its object the overthrow by violent means of Governments as by law established, the mere conviction alone did not be regarded as a disqualification.
(3 of 5) [CW-11117/2017] The extent of non application of mind with which the Director, Secondary Education appears to have functioned is symptomatic of insensitivity and the right to livelihood. It should have been considered that even in the event of the petitioner's conviction in the prosecution for offences under Sections 323, 325 & 341 IPC it would not have entailed a conviction for an offence of moral turpitude. In that situation, even the conviction could not suffice to disqualify the petitioner in view of Note-1 to the Rule 12 of the Rules of 1970 aforesaid.
The standards of Governance in the State come into question multiples times a week before this Court. Its function increasingly becoming as a forum to deal with maladministration and misgovernance rather than a forum for interpretation of law as it ought to be in the exercise of the extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The state of law with regard to the effect of a petty criminal cases on public employment has been repeatedly reiterated by this Court and more recently in the case of Kailash Chand Jat vs. State of Rajasthan & Another SBCWP No.353/2017 decided on (4 of 5) [CW-11117/2017] 3.12.2018, wherein Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 which is pari materia with Rule 12 of the Rules of 1970 was under consideration. It was held that a petty criminal case for offences without moral turpitude cannot entail denial of appointment to a duly selected candidate. Mr.Vigyan Shah, counsel for the petitioner has produced before the Court the final judgment dated 1.9.2018 passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Churu in the case of Government vs. Suresh Kumar whereby the petitioner has been acquitted in criminal case No.117/2014 (CFN:-82/2015) for offences under Sections 323, 325 & 341 IPC.
In this view of the matter, I would require the Director, Secondary Education to review the order dated 31.10.2017 by which the petitioner's appointment as School Lecturer (Political Science) issued on 11.6.2017 has been cancelled. The petitioner also in the meantime furnish to him a certified copy of the judgment of acquittal in the criminal case against himself under Sections 323, 325 & 341 IPC. This be done within one week. The (5 of 5) [CW-11117/2017] exercise of consideration by the Director, Secondary Education as directed be done within one week thereafter.
Put up on 13.2.2019 at 02:00 PM. Tag with SBCWP No.257/2018.
(ALOK SHARMA), J Himanshu/112 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)