Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vijendra Prasad Sisodiya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:47482) on 4 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:47482]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6969/2021
Vijendra Prasad Sisodiya S/o Raghuveer Prasad Sisodiya, Aged
About 38 Years, Ward No.17, Uparla Bass, Hanuman Mandir, Post
Kuchera, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Secondary Education, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. The Principal, Government Senior Secondary School,
Nimbara, Rani, District Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma
Mr. Piyush Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta
Mr. Bhupesh Charan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 04/11/2025
1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for the respondents to allow him to join on the post of Lecturer (School Education).
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that vide advertisement dated 13.04.2018 applications were invited from eligibile and desirous candidates for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Sechool Education) in different subjects including Political Science. The petitioner possessing the requisite qualifications (Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:36:26 PM) (Downloaded on 10/11/2025 at 08:41:04 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47482] (2 of 8) [CW-6969/2021] applied for the post in the subject Political Science. The respondents vide corrigendum dated 19.09.2019 re-advertised the post of Lecturer (School Education), however, the candidates who had applied earlier were not required to apply again. The petitioner participated in the selection process and ultimately, he was given appointment vide order dated 01.04.2021, wherein his name finds place at S.No.11. In pursuance of the appointment order, the petitioner submitted his joinining before the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Nimbada, Rani, District Pali. Alongwith the application for joining, the petitioner also submitted documents including the police verification report issued by the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur, which mentioned registration of a criminal case against him, therefore, the Principal of the concerned school vide letter dated 05.04.2021 sought clarification from the Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner regarding joining of the petitioner. Since the petitioner was not allowed to join duties, he preferred the instant writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.
3. The matter was listed before the court on 12.05.2025, on which day, while issuing notices to the respondents, it was directed that the petitioner's appointment on the post of Lecturer shall not be cancelled. It appears that the respondents did not receive a copy of the order dated 12.05.2021 in time, therefore, vide order dated 27.05.2021 the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. However, later on vide order dated 20.07.2021, the earlier order dated 27.05.2021 was kept in abeyance till further (Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:36:26 PM) (Downloaded on 10/11/2025 at 08:41:04 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47482] (3 of 8) [CW-6969/2021] orders and one post of Lecturer (Political Science) was kept reserved for the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a matrimonial discord between the petitioner and his wife and therefore, she lodged an FIR against him for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 354, 354B of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, wherein a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner. During the pendency of the instant writ petition, the petitioner and his wife resolved the dispute amicably and a compromise came to be executed between them and on the basis of the settlement between the parties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur vide judgment dated 27.06.2024 passed in Criminal Original Case No.1735/2020 (FIR No.91/2020 Police Station Mahila Thana, Nagaur) has acquitted the petitioner from all the charges. A certified copy of the judgment has been placed on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sole ground of not allowing the petitioner to join his duties was pendency of criminal case referred above. However, the fact remains that firstly, none of the offences alleged involve moral turpitude, rather the same were outcome of a riff between the petitioner and his wife due to matrimonial discord and the case was lodged purely in order to exert pressure upon the petitioner, however, later on under the guidance of family members, the parties came to senses and arrived at an amicable settlement. Secondly the petitioner has already been acquitted in the criminal case and as such, there (Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:36:26 PM) (Downloaded on 10/11/2025 at 08:41:04 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47482] (4 of 8) [CW-6969/2021] is no hindrance in allowing the petitioner to join on the post. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the matter of appointment in Government service, there is not a complete bar for a person having criminal antecedents. Even a convicted person can be given appointment in Government service if the appointing authority feels that there are redeeming features and reasons to believe that such a person has cured himself of the weakness. However, such is not a case in the present matter as the petitioner has already been acquitted. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has concealed any information in order to get employment. Learned counsel in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the following judgments :
(1) State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah [1999(1) SCC 529] (2) Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Anr [1996 SCC (4) 17] (3) Brijendra Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
[1997(7) SLR 655] On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for acceptance of the writ petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits even though the petitioner has been acquitted based on compromise, but the actual result of the criminal case (acquittal or discharge) has no bearing on the employer's right to assess the candidate's overall conduct and character to determine their fitness for the role. The employer can still deem a person undesirable for (Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:36:26 PM) (Downloaded on 10/11/2025 at 08:41:04 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47482] (5 of 8) [CW-6969/2021] appointment if their antecedents are questionable, particularly if the acquittal was due to technical reasons like witnesses turning hostile (not an "honourable acquittal" after a thorough examination on merits). Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is seeking employment as a School Lecturer. The duties attached to the post of School Lecturer are not confined merely to imparting education and providing academic guidance, but extend to the inculcation of moral values, discipline, and good character among students, who are the future citizens of the nation. Having regard to the nature and dignity of the post, it is imperative that the incumbent be a person of unimpeachable integrity and moral conduct. Consequently, a person against whom allegations of moral turpitude have been made cannot be considered fit to hold a position in government service. He has placed reliance on the circular dated 04.12.2019 issued Government regarding appointment of candidates against whom criminal cases are either pending or decided. He has also placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of his contentions :-
(1) Delhi Administration and Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar [(1996) 11 SCC 605] (2) Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors. Vs. Pradeep Kumar & Anr. (2018) 1 SCC 797
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
8. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner is possessing all the requisite qualifications for the post of School (Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:36:26 PM) (Downloaded on 10/11/2025 at 08:41:04 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47482] (6 of 8) [CW-6969/2021] Lecturer advertised by the respondents and after following the rigid selection process he was declared successful and an appointment order was issued in his favour. There is no allegation against the petitioner of concealing any information. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner was facing trial for offences under Sections 498A, 406 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. These offences, by their very nature, are personal and matrimonial in character, arising out of discord between the petitioner and his wife. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar (supra) has observed that an offence can be said to involve moral turpitude only when it discloses an act of depravity or vileness in the private and social duties which a person owes to society. The present offences, being confined to a matrimonial dispute and not involving any element of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, cannot be treated as offences involving moral turpitude. Registration of such a case cannot by itself render the petitioner unfit for public employment. The record further reveals that the petitioner was acquitted by the competent criminal court on the basis of a lawful compromise entered into with his wife. Once the criminal court has recorded an acquittal, the presumption of innocence, which was already existing in favour of the petitioner, has been fortified. It is a settled principle that an employer cannot continue to treat a person as guilty once he has been acquitted, unless there are independent reasons to doubt his suitability. An acquittal based on a compromise in a matrimonial case restores the individual's legal and moral status and cannot be used to deprive him of employment opportunities. The post to which the petitioner was selected is that of a School (Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:36:26 PM) (Downloaded on 10/11/2025 at 08:41:04 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47482] (7 of 8) [CW-6969/2021] Lecturer. The allegations against him were of domestic nature and have no connection whatsoever with the performance of official duties as a teacher. It is well recognized that unless the conduct complained of has a direct bearing on the integrity, honesty, or efficiency required for public service, it cannot be treated as disqualification. The alleged offences neither involve moral depravity nor any act of corruption or abuse of public trust. Hence, I find that there is no rational nexus between the criminal proceedings faced by the petitioner and the duties attached to the post of Lecturer. The petitioner, having been duly selected, was denied appointment solely on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings which have now culminated in his acquittal. Such denial, in the considered opinion of this court, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. In the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India, [(2016) 8 SCC 471], the Supreme Court has held that in cases where the employee has been acquitted and the offences do not involve moral turpitude or have any bearing on employment, a liberal and sympathetic view should be taken. The principles laid down therein fully apply to the case at hand. The action of the respondents in cancelling the petitioner's appointment despite his acquittal is, therefore, unsustainable in law.
9. While issuing notices to the respondents, this court had passed an interim order directing that a post be kept reserved for the petitioner till final adjudication of the writ petition, in pursuance whereof the respondents have kept one post of School (Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:36:26 PM) (Downloaded on 10/11/2025 at 08:41:04 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47482] (8 of 8) [CW-6969/2021] Lecturer (Political Science) reserved till further orders. Apart from a small dent in the name of this criminal case in which he has been acquitted, there is no other material on record to indicate that the antecedents or the conduct of the petitioner was not up to the mark to appoint him to the post. The petitioner was duly appointed pursuant to a rigorous selection process and had fulfilled all the requisite qualifications and conditions prescribed for the post. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, it is fit case for issuing directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to join his duties in pursuance of the appointment order dated 01.04.2021.
10. Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed. The order dated 27.05.2021, whereby the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground of pendency of criminal case, is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join his duties in pursuance of the appointment order dated 01.04.2021. They would be free to give a different place of posting than the one mentioned in the order, if the post at that particular school is not vacant.
11. All pending applications are disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J 194-Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:36:26 PM) (Downloaded on 10/11/2025 at 08:41:04 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)