Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Rajendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:18026) on 7 April, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:18026]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10321/2024
Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Prathvee Raj Singh, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of 561, Uchal, Akoli, P.o. Bagra, District Jalore
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The
Government, Department Of Elementary Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Directorate Of Elementary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
4. District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
Education, Jalore.
5. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of
Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur
Through Its Chairman.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Tayal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Soni for
Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
07/04/2025
1. Grievance of the petitioner herein arises out of an order/
communication dated 07.06.2024 (Annex.14), vide which,
petitioner’s candidature on the post of Primary School Teacher
(General/Special Education)(Level-I, Class I to V) pursuant to an
advertisement dated 16.12.2022 (Annex.3), was rejected.
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:26:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18026] (2 of 8) [CW-10321/2024]
2. Succinctly speaking, relevant facts first.
2.1 Advertisement dated 16.12.2022 (Annex.3) was issued for
the post of Primary School Teacher (General/Special Education)
(Level-I, Class I to V). The petitioner applied for the post and
cleared the written examination and his name finds place in the
list of provisionally selected candidates. Thereafter, the petitioner
was permitted to participate in the document verification. The
respondents issued an order dated 31.07.2023 (Annex.7)
containing the list of finally selected candidates in which name of
petitioner finds mention at S.No.5339. Thereafter, the respondents
issued a list of candidates for counseling in which the petitioner’s
name appears at S.No.295.
2.2 However, his appointment was withheld due to a pending
criminal case under Sections 199, 200, 466, 467, 468, 471 and
420 IPC.
2.3. After trial, the petitioner was acquitted of all charges, vide
order dated 07.07.2023, passed by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Jalore which was affirmed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore in appeal. The petitioner
thereafter approached the respondents but vide impugned
order/communication, dated 07.06.2024 (Annex.14), his
candidature has been rejected. Hence this petition.
3. Stand taken by the respondents in their reply, inter alia, is
that matter was examined by the competent committee
constituted under directions issued by the Department of
Personnel vide Circulars dated 04.12.2019 and 26.10.2021 in its
meeting dated 27.02.2024 and candidature of the petitioner was
rejected.
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:26:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18026] (3 of 8) [CW-10321/2024]
3.1 It is also submitted inter-alia that the Committee opined that
the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature.
The post of teacher is very important as the teacher will construct
the nation by giving moral education to the students.
3.2 It is further submitted in the reply that acquittal on the
basis of compromise or by giving benefit of doubt cannot be
treated as equivalent to honorable acquittal and looking to the FIR
lodged against the petitioner the character of the petitioner is
treated to be doubtful and as per settled legal proposition the
employer is the best judge to examine the suitability of a
candidate to be appointed as a Teacher. Therefore, petition
deserves to be dismissed as it is devoid of merit.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard rival contention
addressed on the lines of the respective pleadings of the parties
and perused the case file.
5. In sum and substance, what boils down for adjudication lies
in a very narrow compass i.e. whether the petitioner is dis-entitled
to seek benefit of his performance in selection process, despite his
acquittal in the criminal proceedings?
6. I am of the opinion that the offences under sections 199,
200, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC neither involve moral
turpitude or nor can they be termed as heinous/serious in nature.
None of the circulars dated 04.12.2019 and 26.10.2021 issued by
the Department of Personnel, State Government referred to and
relied upon by the respondents in their written reply have been
produced on record.
6.1 Be that as it may, even otherwise, the petitioner has been
acquitted of all charges by a competent court of law. Trite it may
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:26:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18026] (4 of 8) [CW-10321/2024]
sound, but on the principle of presumption of innocence, an
acquittal restores the petitioner’s status as a law-abiding citizen.
The respondents’ stand that the acquittal was not “honorable” is
merely speculative. The acquittal remains valid unless set aside in
appeal. No such appeal against acquittal was filed by the State.
Denying the petitioner an appointment solely due to an FIR/trial,
in which he has been acquitted by the competent Court, amounts
to punishing him by the respondents.
6.2 An individual acquitted after trial cannot be stigmatized
merely for having been an accused in a criminal trial in past.
Moreover, denying an employment opportunity to an accused who
has been acquitted is against the principle of reintegration of such
individuals into society against the basic tenets of principles of
addressing recidivism. Being so I see no reason on what grounds
the respondents are pleading that the petitioner is not entitled to
any benefit of the acquittal.
7. In this context reference may be had to judgment dated
27.03.2025 rendered by this very Bench in case titled Avinash
Kumar Dhillan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 1. Relevant
thereof is reproduced as under:-
“12. Having regard to the aforesaid, there is no quibble about
the proposition that a person who wishes to join the Education
Department must be having an impeccable character and
integrity and if the offence committed involves moral turpitude,
then the employer is entitled to reject the candidature given the
sensitive nature of job which the disciplinary forces are meant
for.
13. At the same time, there is no denying the fact that the
mere registration of an FIR does not diminish a citizen’s status
or impugn his/her character. Every individual is presumed
innocent until proven guilty. In the present case, it is important
to highlight that the petitioner has been acquitted in all pending
criminal cases. This acquittal indicates that the petitioner has
not been found guilty of any criminal conduct. Furthermore, the
1 Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur – S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1011/2024 [2025 : RJ-JD : 13304](Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:26:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18026] (5 of 8) [CW-10321/2024]alleged role attributed to the petitioner does not hold any
significant weight or impact on the nature of the duties he is to
perform. There is also no indication of any moral turpitude or
misconduct that would undermine the petitioner’s suitability for
the role in question. Thus, the acquittal reflect the petitioner’s
innocence, and there is no valid reason to question their
integrity or capacity to fulfill their responsibilities.
16. Youth deserve a reformative approach to the indiscretions
committed in heat of the moment, which may or may not be
intentional. Societal and so should the legal perspective be, of
course depending upon the nature of delinquency, that youthful
indiscretions should not permanently tarnish an individual’s
future. A compassionate and reformative approach ought to be
adopted when dealing with young individuals who may have
committed minor transgressions. Young people, particularly in
their late teens and early twenties, are still in the process of
emotional and intellectual development. At this stage, they often
act impulsively, sometimes making decisions that are not well
thought out. A rigid punitive approach that permanently brands
young individuals as criminals for relatively minor mistakes is
against the principles of justice/fairness, recidivism and
reformation and their reintegration into society.
17. Furthermore, the principle of proportionality must be kept
in mind by the administrative authority. Not all offences are of
the same gravity, and minor indiscretions should not be equated
with serious crimes. In the present case, the rejection of the
petitioner’s candidature appears to be solely based on the fact
that, despite the petitioner having been acquitted in criminal
cases, the nature of those criminal cases is considered to be of a
serious and grave character.
18. Similar controversy was involved in a case titled Sukhjit
Singh vs. State of Punjab2. Vide a judgment rendered therein
incidentally by me, while as a Judge of Punjab and Haryana
High Court, which in turn is based on Division Bench
judgments of two different High Courts3. For ready reference,
relevant thereof is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“12. Every acquittal is honourable acquittal. There is
nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code nor is there any
rule of criminal jurisprudence for treating the effects and
consequences of an honourable acquittal from an acquittal
on failure of the prosecution to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt.
13. A Division Bench of this Court in a case titled as Shashi
Kumar Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another,
2005 (1) SCT 576 relying in turn on another Division Bench
of Madras High Court has held that the terms honourable
acquittal or fully exonerated unknown in the Criminal
Jurisprudence. His Lordship S.S.Nijjar, J. (as he then was of2 Punjab & Haryana High Court, CWP No.9808/2003, decided on 13.08.2019
3 Shashi Kumar Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, 2005(1) SCT 576 & Union of India Vs. Jayaram,
AIR 1860 Madras 325.
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:26:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18026] (6 of 8) [CW-10321/2024]
this Court) speaking for the Division Bench observed as
below:-
7. In any event, the terms “honourable acquittal” or
“fully exonerated” are unknown in the Code of Criminal
Procedure or in Criminal Jurisprudence. These terms
came up for consideration before a Division Bench of
the Madras High Court in the case of Union of India Vs.
Jayaram, AIR 1960 Madras 325. Rajammannar, C.J.
Delivering the judgment of the Division Bench observed
as under:-
There is no conception like “honourable acquittal”
in Criminal Procedure Code The onus of establishing
the guilt of accused is on the prosecution, and if it fails
to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the
accused is entitled to be acquitted.
Clause (b) of Article 193 of the Civil Service
Regulations which says that when a Government servant
who was under suspension is honourably acquitted, he
may be given the full salary to which he would have
been entitled if he had not been suspended applies only
to the case of departmental Inquiry.
Where the servant was suspended because there
was a criminal prosecution against him, and he was
acquitted therein, and reinstated he is entitled under the
general law, to the full pay during the period of his
suspension. To such a case Article 193(b) does not
apply.”
8. The aforesaid judgment of the Madras High Court
was considered and followed by this Court in the case of
Jagmohan Lal Vs. State of Punjab through Secy, to
Punjab Govt. Irrigation and others, AIR 1967 (54)
Punjab and Haryana 422 (punjab). In that case, on
acquittal, the petitioner was reinstated in service, buthis
period of suspension was not treated as the period spent
on duty. He had, therefore, filed writ petition under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India claiming
that he was entitled to full pay and allowances for the
period of his suspension. Considering the impact of
Rules 7.3,7.5 and 7.6 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules
Vol.I Part-1, it was observed as follows:-
(2) XXX XXX XXX
The interpretation which has been put by the
Government on the rule is incorrect. The blame which
attached to the petitioner was that there was a criminal
charge against him under which he was standing his
trial. The moment he is acquitted of the charge, he is
acquitted of the blame. In criminal law, the Courts are
called upon to decide whether the prosecution has
succeeded in bringing home the guilt to the accused. The
moment the Court is not satisfied regarding the guilt of(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:26:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18026] (7 of 8) [CW-10321/2024]the accused, he is acquitted. Whether a person is
acquitted after being given a benefit of doubt or for that
reasons, the result is that his guilt is not proved. The
Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate
honourable acquittal. The only words known to the Code
are ‘discharged’ or ‘acquitted’. The effect of a person
being discharged or acquitted is the same in the eyes of
law. Since, according to the accepted notions of
imparting criminal justice, the Court has to be satisfied
regarding the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable
doubt, it is generally held that there being a doubt in the
mind of the court, the accused is acquitted.
I am, therefore, quite clear in my mind that the intention
underlying Rule 7.5 can be no other except this” the
moment the criminal charge on account of which an
officer was suspended fails in a court of law, he should
be deemed to be acquitted of the blame. Any other
interpretation would defeat the very purpose of the rule.
It is futile to expect a finding of either honourable
acquittal or complete innocence in a judgment of
acquittal. The reason is obvious; the criminal courts are
not concerned to find the innocence of the accused. They
are only concerned to find whether the prosecution has
succeeded in proving beyond a reasonable doubt the
guilt of the accused.”
8. Reference may also be had to another judgment dated
13.05.2024 rendered in somewhat similar circumstances in case
titled Rajendra Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan 4. Relevant
thereof are paras 12 to 20 which are not being reproduced for
sake of brevity.
9. Same view was subsequently taken in Shankar Lal vs.
State of Rajasthan and others5.
10. In the light of above discussion, the question framed in para
5 is answered in the negative. It is held that following the
acquittal in the criminal proceedings, owing to which the
petitioner’s candidature was rejected, he is entitled to seek benefit
of his performance.
4 Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur – S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15957/2021 [2024 : RJ-JD : 21389]
5 Rajasathan High Court, Jodhpur – (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 756/2022) decided on 18.11.2024 [2024 :
RJ-JD : 46615]
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:26:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18026] (8 of 8) [CW-10321/2024]
11. As regards the availability of the post, a Coordinate Bench of
this Court, earlier seized of the matter, vide order dated
02.07.2024 had directed the respondents to keep one post vacant
in the category in which the petitioner had applied.
12. As an upshot, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 07.06.2024 (Annex.14) is quashed and set-aside. The
respondents are directed to issue appointment letter to the
petitioner on the post of Primary School Teacher (General/Special
Education)(Level-I, Class I to V) within a period of 30 days of his
approaching the respondents with a web-print of the instant order.
13. For the period he remained out of service, he shall not be
entitled to any financial benefits on the principal of ‘No Work No
Pay’, however, the petitioner shall be accorded all the notional
benefits including seniority with effect from the same date his
counterparts were appointed pursuant to the selection process
wherein petition also competed along with them.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
152-SP/skm/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:26:05 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)