Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ganesh Lal Parmar vs Secretary (Admn.) Jodhpur Vidyut … on 12 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:13887]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4559/2023
Ganesh Lal Parmar S/o Hajaram Parmar, Aged About 27 Years,
Naya Ganv Nichla, Tehsil And District Dungarpur, (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
Secretary (Admn.) Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, New
Power House, Jodhpur. (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramawatar Singh.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vipul Dharnia.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
12/03/2025
1. Petitioner herein, is before this Court, inter-alia, seeks
issuance of appropriate writ, order and / or direction commanding
the respondents to accord him appointment on the post of
Technical Helper-III, pursuant to advertisement dated 04.02.2022
(Annex.1) with all consequential benefits.
2. Brief facts first. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL)
issued an advertisement dated 04.02.2022, inviting applications
for the recruitment of Technical Helper-III in both TSP and Non-
TSP areas. The petitioner, being fully eligible, applied for the
same. In the online written examination, petitioner secured
82.0000 marks, which were subsequently normalized to 80.36679
marks.
2.1 After being successful in the aforesaid examination, the
petitioner was called for document verification on 19.01.2023,
wherein he submitted all original documents alongwith an affidavit
that disclosed pendency of a criminal case against him.
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 09:22:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13887] (2 of 8) [CW-4559/2023]
2.2 Despite the petitioner being included in the select list, JVVNL
issued the impugned order dated 03.03.2023, appointing all other
selected candidates, but excluding the petitioner.
2.4 The State Government has issued a circular dated 15.07.2016,
which bars the appointment of candidates who conceal the fact of
being involved in criminal cases, particularly those involving moral
turpitude, based on guidelines set by the Apex Court and High
Courts.
2.5 The petitioner was implicated in an incident on 27.09.2020,
leading to an FIR No.0252/2020, dated 28.09.2020, lodged
against 230 individuals, including him, at P.S. Dobda, Dungarpur
for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 283, 269,
270, 336 & 188 of IPC. Following the investigation, a challan was
filed against the accused. However, charges have not yet been
framed against the petitioner. Being aggrieved against the
impugned order dated 03.03.2023 (Annexure-06), petitioner has
approached this Court by way of the instant petition.
3. Relevant stand taken by the respondents in their reply is as
follows:-
“3. That the averments contained in para 3 of the writ petition are
denied in the manner as alleged by the petitioner. It is submitted that
the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination on provisional
basis and his candidature was not determined by the respondent
Nigam, further the successful candidates were provisionally called by
the respondent Nigam for verification of documents to ascertained
their candidature.
4. That the averments contained in para 4 of the writ petition are
not disputed so far it relates to preparation of merit list of successful
candidate 1.5 time of the vacancies to call for document verification to
ascertained their candidature and to select the successful candidature
as per provisions of rules. It is submitted that merely calling candidate
for document verification does not create any right in favour of the
petitioner.
It is further submitted that petitioner was required to declare that
no criminal case is pending against him or he was not convicted by
any court. That pursuant to which the petitioner has submitted an
affidavit dated 17.01.2023 (Annexure-4) wherein, he has mentioned(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 09:22:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13887] (3 of 8) [CW-4559/2023]that criminal case is pending against him before JM Court, Dungarpur
bearing Case No.252/2020 for an offence under Sections 147, 148,
149, 341, 436, 283, 269, 270, 336 & 188 of IPC. It is humbly
submitted that for appointment in Nigam a candidate is required to
have sound character and in instant case petitioner was involved in a
criminal case and criminal proceeding was pending against him in the
court.”
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
and perused the case file along with the annexures appended
therewith.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the review
committee has wrongly withheld the appointment of the petitioner
only on the sole ground of mere registration of an FIR. He argues
that the FIR in question has been lodged on general allegations
against 230 persons and no specific allegation / role has been
attributed to the petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents relies on
judgment rendered in State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Gobinda
Behera : (2021) 14 SCC 445, wherein it is held as under :-
5. The respondent was seeking public employment in the State
Police service. His duties, on appointment to the service, would be
of a responsible character, bearing intrinsically on the
maintenance of law and order and with consequences for personal
liberty of citizens. To expect that an applicant for such a position
would be truthful in the disclosure of information sought about the
antecedents is a justifiable basis for assessment of personality and
character. The employer can legitimately conclude that a person
who has suppressed material facts does not deserve to be in its
employment.
6. In the present case, the case against the respondent cannot be
regarded as being trivial in nature. That apart, it is evident that,
despite being involved in the criminal case, the respondent
suppressed these facts from the authorities while applying for the
post of a Constable in the State Police. The criminal case was
quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC on
the basis of a compromise between the parties much after the order
of discharge. Hence, the view which has been taken by the High
Court is palpably unsustainable. The Tribunal was justified in
rejecting the application.
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 09:22:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13887] (4 of 8) [CW-4559/2023] 7. He further relies on Union Territory, Chandigarh
Administration & Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar & Anr. :(2018) 1
SCC 797, wherein it is held as under :-
10. The acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of the
suitability of the candidates in the post concerned. If a person is
acquitted or discharged, it cannot always be inferred that he was
falsely involved or he had no criminal antecedents. Unless it is an
honourable acquittal, the candidate cannot claim the benefit of the
case. What is honourable acquittal, was considered by this Court
in Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram [Inspector
General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 : (2013) 1
SCC (Cri) 566 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 229] , in which this Court
held as under: (SCC p. 609, para 24)
“24. The meaning of the expression “honourable
acquittal” came up for consideration before this Court
in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [RBI v. Bhopal Singh
Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 594] . In
that case, this Court has considered the impact of
Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a
criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that
context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not
entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the
acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The
expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted of
blame”, “fully exonerated” are unknown to the Code of
Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined
by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define
precisely what is meant by the expression “honourably
acquitted”. When the accused is acquitted after full
consideration of prosecution evidence and that the
prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges
levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that
the accused was honourably acquitted.”
xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx
13. It is thus well settled that acquittal in a criminal case does not
automatically entitle him for appointment to the post. Still it is open
to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether he
is suitable for appointment to the post. From the observations of this
Court in Mehar Singh [Commr. of Police v. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7
SCC 685 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 669 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 910]
and Parvez Khan [State of M.P. v. Parvez Khan, (2015) 2 SCC 591 :
(2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 544] cases, it is clear that a candidate to be
recruited to the police service must be of impeccable character and
integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this
category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be
presumed that he was honourably acquitted/completely exonerated.
The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 09:22:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13887] (5 of 8) [CW-4559/2023]
unless it is shown to be mala fide. The Screening Committee also
must be alive to the importance of the trust reposed in it and must
examine the candidate with utmost character.
xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
15. From the above details, we find that the Screening Committee
examined each and every case of the respondents and reasonings for
their acquittal and taken the decision. While deciding whether a
person involved in a criminal case has been acquitted or discharged
should be appointed to a post in a police force, nature of offence in
which he is involved, whether it was an honourable acquittal or only
an extension of benefit of doubt because of witnesses turned hostile
and flaws in the prosecution are all the aspects to be considered by
the Screening Committee for taking the decision whether the
candidate is suitable for the post. As pointed out earlier, the
Screening Committee examined each and every case and reasonings
for their acquittal and took the decision that the respondents are not
suitable for the post of Constable in Chandigarh Police. The
procedure followed is as per Guideline 2(A)(b) and object of such
screening is to ensure that only persons with impeccable character
enters police force. While so, the court cannot substitute its views for
the decision of the Screening Committee.”
8. I shall now proceed to render my opinion by recording
reasons and discussions thereof in the succeeding part. First and
foremost, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner
on the judgments as quoted herein-above seems to be misplaced.
While there is no quibble about the preposition that a person
seeking appointment in police services cannot simplicitor take
advantage of his being acquitted or discharged in the criminal
proceedings based on compromise between the parties.
Antecedents of a person seeking appointment in police services no
doubt shall precede over his suspected culpability in the offence
wherein the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond any
shadow of doubt, that too after due application of mind by the
employer.
9. In the instant case, petitioner seeks appointment on the post
of Technical Helper. Having seen the report submitted by the
review committee, it appears that there has been no application of
mind, whatsoever, of any kind, to withhold the appointment of the
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 09:22:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13887] (6 of 8) [CW-4559/2023]
petitioner, the same has been done merely by cursorily observing
that since the criminal case is pending, therefore, the petitioner
cannot be appointed until the decision of the same. For ready
reference, english translation of the report of the review
committee reads as under ;-
“Case Number-4: Shri Ganesh Lal Parmar, Technical Helper-III
Recruitment Year-2021.
It has been decided in the meeting that due to the pending
criminal case against Shri Ganesh Lal Parmar and as per the order
dated 21.04.2023 of the Hon’ble High Court of Jodhpur, one
position of Technical Helper – 2021 will remain vacant.”
10. Reference may be had to an order / judgment dated
30.01.2024 bearing SBCWP No. 18747/2019 (Patram vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.) rendered by this very Bench. The observations
and the ratio as enunciated therein, being apposite, is reproduced
herein-below:
“6. Turning to the petitioner’s case on its merits, it is
acknowledged, as per the respondents’ submitted response, that the
petitioner did not withhold any information regarding the FIR
against him. Before joining his duties, he voluntarily disclosed the
existence of FIR No.309/2019, registered at Police Station
Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, under Sections 498-A, 406,
323, 354 of IPC, initiated by his estranged wife due to marital
discord. Furthermore, the criminal trial stemming from this FIR has
concluded with the petitioner’s acquittal.
7. The only opposition at this stage for not allowing the petition
is reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the
Apex Court judgment rendered in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India &
Ors., reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471.
8. Having perused the judgment, ibid, what has to be borne in
mind is that candidates must truthfully disclose information
regarding convictions, acquittals, arrests, or pending criminal cases
to their employers, both before and after employment, without
suppression or false statements. Employers, when terminating
services or canceling candidatures due to false information, should
consider special circumstances and relevant government
regulations. Additionally, appropriate actions should be taken if
there is suppression or false information regarding involvement in a
criminal case, depending on its nature. The accuracy and specificity(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 09:22:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13887] (7 of 8) [CW-4559/2023]of attestation/verification forms are crucial, and guilt for
suppression or false suggestion requires attributable knowledge.
Employers, no doubt, can maintain their discretion in considering
disclosed information and are not obligated to appoint candidates
even if truthful disclosures are made, particularly in cases involving
multiple pending cases or serious criminal offenses.
9. In the instant case there is no allegation of suppression or
concealment on the part of petitioner. Even the offences, at the
relevant time when he was embroiled in, did not in any manner
impinge on the nature of duties which are/were to be performed by
the petitioner. Be that as it may, he in any case stands acquitted and
has vindicated himself.
10. As an upshot of my discussion, as above, there is no
justification for denying the petitioner appointment on the post he
has been selected for.”
11. It transpires that the judgment rendered in Patram ibid, is
under challenge by the State, but no steps whatsoever have been
taken for getting the Division Bench Appeal listed after filing of the
same. Moreover, the appeal has not even been registered and is
currently pending in the Registry under objections.
12. Furthermore, I am unable to accept the arguments of
learned counsel for the respondents that the review committee did
not apply its mind since the writ petition is pending before this
Court. There is no stay granted by this Court so as to restrain the
review committee to apply its mind during pendency of the writ
proceedings and in view thereof, the reasoning assigned by the
review committee that since criminal case is pending the
petitioner cannot be appointed, is not sustainable.
13. Neither there is any observation as to what is the role
attributed to the petitioner nor any finding of the offence or the
role attributed to him amounting to moral turpitude nor otherwise
any observation as to how the pending trial might impede the
nature of the duty to be performed by him.
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 09:22:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13887] (8 of 8) [CW-4559/2023]
14. In the premise, the instant petition is allowed. Respondents
are directed to take steps to issue an appointment letter to the
petitioner subject to him giving an undertaking / affidavit that in
case, he is convicted in the pending criminal proceedings against
him, he shall not claim any equity by virtue of the instant interim
order and the respondents shall be at liberty to dispense with the
services in accordance with law by giving him prior notice.
15. Regarding the vacancy, vide an interim order dated
21.04.2023, one post of Technical Helper-III was directed to be
kept vacant by Coordinate Bench of this Court, then seized of the
matter, in following terms :-
“Issue notice, returnable on 08.05.2023. Issue notice of the
stay application also.
Additionally, learned counsel for the petitioner will be free to
serve a copy of the writ petition upon the Standing counsel of the
respondents department.
Meanwhile and till the next date of hearing, one post of
Technical Helper Grade-III in pursuance of the advertisement
dated 04.02.2022 (Annex.1) shall be kept vacant.”
16. Aforesaid stay order continues to subsist even as on today.
17. In the parting, I may hasten to add that the petitioner shall
be accorded seniority and notional benefits with effect from the
same date when his counterparts were issued appointment letters
with whom he had competed, pursuant to the same
advertisement. As regards the financial benefits, he shall not be
entitled to the same on the principle of ‘no work’ ‘no pay’.
18. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
96-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-
Whether fit for reporting: Yes / No
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 09:22:26 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)