Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Ranveer Singh vs State Of Raj And Ors on 8 July, 2022

Author: Inderjeet Singh

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10450/2018

Ranveer Singh S/o Shri Bachhu Singh, Resident Of Village
Barkoli,   Post     Ucchain,     Tehsil      Roopbas,         District   Bharatpur,
Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan Through The Addl. Chief Secretary,
       Home         Department,            Government             Of     Rajasthan,
       Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Lal
       Kothi Sabji Mandi, Behind Nehru Palace, Jaipur.
3.     The Inspector General Of Police Headquarter, Police
       Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4.     The Superintendent Of Police, Kota City, District Kota.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.S. Naruka on behalf of Mr. Rupin Kala, GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 08/07/2022

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

1. The impugned action/ommission on the part of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner on the post of Constable Driver and the impugned reasoining given in the letter dated 31.01.2018 i.e. denying the appointment/posting to the petitioner on the ground of concealment of fact may kindly be quashed and set aside (though it was denied under letter dated 27.01.2016 due to pendency of the criminal case for (Downloaded on 25/07/2022 at 12:11:02 AM) (2 of 9) [CW-10450/2018] offence under Section 16/54, 54-Kha-(1) Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950) and the respondents may be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Constable Driver in pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.07.2013 with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice.

2. Any other appropriate order, which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be passed in favour of the petitioner.

3. Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement dated 14.07.2013 was issued by the respondents holding selection for the post of Constable, pursuant to which the petitioner applied and after participating in the selection process was found to be a successful candidate. However, the respondents denied appointment to the petitioner on the ground that one criminal case was registered and pending against him at the time of selection process, therefore, he is not entitled for appointment on the post of constable.

3. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court at Principal seat Jodhpur in the matter of Lokesh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ No.18212/2018) decided on 20.02.2019 and also relied upon the circular issued by the Department dated 26.10.2021.

4. Counsel for the respondents while opposing the writ petition submitted that after being successful in the selection process, during the verification it was found that a criminal case was registered and pending against the petitioner, therefore, the respondents denied appointment to the petitioner.

5. Counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. (Downloaded on 25/07/2022 at 12:11:02 AM) (3 of 9) [CW-10450/2018] Love Kush Meena, reported in (2021) 8 SCC 774 where in paras-24, 25 & 28 it has been held as under :-

"24. Examining the controversy in the present case in the conspectus of the aforesaid legal position, what is important to note is the fact that the view of this Court has depended on the nature of offence charged and the result of the same. The mere fact of an acquittal would not suffice but rather it would depend on whether it is a clean acquittal based on total absence of evidence or in the criminal jurisprudence requiring the case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, that parameter having not been met, benefit of doubt has been granted to the Accused. No doubt, in that facts of the present case, the person who ran the tractor over the deceased lady was one of the other co-Accused but the role assigned to the others including the Respondent herein was not of a mere bystander or being present at site. The attack with knives was alleged against all the other co-Accused including the Respondent.

25. We may also notice this is a clear case where the endeavour was to settle the dispute, albeit not with the job in mind. This is obvious from the recital in the judgment of the Trial Court that the compoundable offences were first compounded during trial but since the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC could not be compounded, the Trial Court continued and qua those offences the witnesses turned hostile. We are of the view that this can hardly fall under the category of a clean acquittal and the Judge was thus right in using the terminology of benefit of doubt in respect of such acquittal.

28. We may note here that the circular dated 28.03.2017 is undoubtedly very wide in its application. It seeks to give the benefit to candidates including those acquitted by the Court by giving benefit of doubt. However, such circular has to be read in the context of the judicial pronouncements and when this Court has (Downloaded on 25/07/2022 at 12:11:02 AM) (4 of 9) [CW-10450/2018] repeatedly opined that giving benefit of doubt would not entitle candidate for appointment, despite the circular, the impugned decision of the competent authority dated 23.05.2017 cannot be said to suffer from infirmity as being in violation of the circular when it is in conformity with the law laid down by this Court."

6. Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Police Vs. Raj Kumar, reported in (2021) 8 SCC 347 where in paras-15, 16, 17, 31 & 32 it has been held as under :-

"15. This Court has, in the past, on several occasions, dealt with questions which are similar, if not entirely identical to what is involved in the present case, to wit, whether in the event of exoneration or acquittal of an applicant/candidate arrayed as Accused of various offences is a decisive factor for consideration of his or her suitability. Several judgments in the past had appeared to draw a distinction between "clean" acquittal of Accused individuals on the one hand and those acquitted or exonerated on account of benefit of doubt. Similarly, where candidates were charged with grave offences involving moral turpitude as well as larger outcomes were examined. Another area which engaged this Court's attention was the effect of non- disclosure of pending criminal cases. Matters came to a head when all these issues were referred to authoritative decision by a larger three judge Bench.

16. In Avtar Singh (supra), the three-judge bench, after detailed discussion of the various circumstances that arose when public authorities are called upon to deal with such cases, recorded its conclusions in the following manner:(SCC p.507,para-38) "38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:

(5 of 9) [CW-10450/2018] 38.1 Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

38.2 While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information."

A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the police force is tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward manner by misusing power are in public domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police force. At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with even hand."

(7 of 9) [CW-10450/2018]

31. Public service-like any other, pre- supposes that the state employer has an element of latitude or choice on who should enter its service. Norms, based on principles, govern essential aspects such as qualification, experience, age, number of attempts permitted to a candidate, etc. These, broadly constitute eligibility conditions required of each candidate or applicant aspiring to enter public service. Judicial review, under the Constitution, is permissible to ensure that those norms are fair and reasonable, and applied fairly, in a non-discriminatory manner. However, suitability is entirely different; the autonomy or choice of the public employer, is greatest, as long as the process of decision making is neither illegal, unfair, or lacking in bona fides.

32. The High Court's approach, evident from its observations about the youth and age of the candidates, appears to hint at the general acceptability of behaviour which involves petty crime or misdemeanour. The impugned order indicates a broad view, that such misdemeanour should not be taken seriously, given the age of the youth and the rural setting. This Court is of opinion that such generalizations, leading to condonation of the offender's conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided. Certain types of offences, like molestation of women, or trespass and beating up, assault, causing hurt or grievous hurt, (with or without use of weapons), of victims, in rural settings, can also be indicative of caste or hierarchy- based behaviour. Each case is to be scrutinized by the concerned public employer, through its designated officials- more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society's security."

7. I have heard counsels for the parties and perused the record and also gone through the judgments cited (supra). (Downloaded on 25/07/2022 at 12:11:02 AM)

(8 of 9) [CW-10450/2018]

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments in the matter of Commissioner of Police & State of Rajasthan Vs. Love Kush Meena (both supra) had an occasion to take into consideration what has been observed in Avtar Singh's case & Mehar Singh (both supra) and made much emphasis on the point that while considering the candidature of a candidate, the employer has to examine very minutely and in its entirety the criminal antecedents against such candidate before offering appointment, in particular in the disciplined security forces and observed that the police force is a disciplined force and therefore shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society and as the people repose great faith in the police force, therefore it must be worthy of that confidence.

9. In the light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Commissioner of Police and State of Rajasthan Vs. Love Kush Meena (both supra), I am of the view that before the offer of appointment is made, the employer has to take into consideration and adjudge the suitability of a candidate as regards the criminal antecedents against the candidate and to be more specific in the disciplined security force and simultaneously it has also to be examined in case of acquittal whether its an honourable acquittal or in the circumstances the giving him benefit of doubt. The another important point to be kept in mind by the employer is to see whether the criminal case pertains to moral turpitude. The law on these points has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases some of which are referred to supra. Now what remains is where there is (Downloaded on 25/07/2022 at 12:11:02 AM) (9 of 9) [CW-10450/2018] clean and honourable acquittal and the crime alleged against the candidate does not pertain to moral turpitude, the same may not come as a bar in seeking appointment but if the position is contrary, the candidate is not entitled for appointment, as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

10. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed; for the reasons, firstly, at the time of submitting the application form a criminal case was pending against the petitioner and the petitioner has concealed this fact while submitting the application form, secondly, the matter relates to the appointment in Disciplined Security Forces, therefore, the Selection Committee has not committed any illegality in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable, thirdly, in view of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Police and Vs. Raj Kumar and State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Love Kush Meena (both supra), I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

11. Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /122 (Downloaded on 25/07/2022 at 12:11:02 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)