Dinesh Kumar Meena vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that.

The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to kindly call the entire record of the case and quash and set aside the action of the respondent as well as

the communication dated 24.08.2018 and the respondent may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Warder pursuant to the

advertisement dated 29.10.2015 with all consequential benefit.

Any order prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, if passed during the pendency of the writ petition, the same may kindly be taken on record and

be pleased to quash and set aside.

Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may consider just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case,

may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

Cost of writ petition may be quantified in favour of the petitioner.

Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to advertisement dated 29.10.2015 issued by respondent petitioner applied for the post of Jail Warder and

in the selection process the petitioner was declared successful by the respondent, however, after examining documents of the petitioner the respondent

cancelled his appointment vide order dated 24.08.2018 (Annexure-7) and the reason assigned for cancellation of his appointment/selection was that

three criminal cases were registered against the petitioner prior to his selection.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.08.2018, this petition has been filed by the petitioner.

Counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner has never concealed any fact from the respondent while submitting application form. Counsel

further submits that in one case the petitioner has been acquitted by the learned trial court and in two other cases benefit of probation was granted to

him and has prayed that the respondent be directed to the give appointment to petitioner on the post of Jail Warder.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that it is within the domain of appointing authority to see antecedents of candidate prior to

issuing appointment letter. Counsel further submits that three criminal cases were registered against the petitioner, therefore the respondent took a

conscious decision to cancel selection of the petitioner on the post of Jail Warder and as such his name was deleted from selection list on that ground.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. Considering the relevance of antecedents or pendency of the criminal cases against the

candidate with regard to their appointment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Abhijt Singh Pawar reported in

(2018) 18 SCC 733 held as under:-

In Avtar Singh, though this Court was principally concerned with the question as to non-disclosure or wrong disclosure of information, it was

observed in para 38.5 that even in cases where a truthful disclosure about a concluded case was made, the employer would still have a right to

consider antecedents of the candidate and could not be compelled to appoint such candidate.

In the present case, as on the date when the Respondent had applied, a criminal case was pending against him. Compromise was entered into only

after an affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed. On the issue of compounding of offences and the effect of acquittal under Section 320(8) CrPC,

the law declared by this Court in Mehar Singh, specifically in paras 34 and 35 completely concludes the issue. Even after the disclosure is made by a

candidate, the employer would be well within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate. While so considering, the

employer can certainly take into account the job profile for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the charges levelled against the candidate

and whether the acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of composition.

The reliance placed by Mr. Dave, learned Amicus Curiae on the decision of this Court in Mohammed Imran is not quite correct and said decision

cannot be of any assistance to the Respondent. In para 5 of the said decision, this Court had found that the only allegation against the Appellant

therein was that he was travelling in an auto- rickshaw which was following the auto- rickshaw in which the prime Accused, who was charged Under

Section 376 IPC, was travelling with the prosecutrix in question and that all the Accused were acquitted as the prosecutrix did not support the

allegation. The decision in Mohammed Imran thus turned on individual facts and cannot in any way be said to have departed from the line of decisions

rendered by this Court in Mehar Singh, Parvez Khan and Pradeep Kumar.

We must observe at this stage that there is nothing on record to suggest that the decision taken by the concerned authorities in rejecting the

candidature of the Respondent was in any way actuated by mala fides or suffered on any other count. The decision on the question of suitability of the

Respondent, in our considered view, was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the

decisions rendered by the Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench and dismiss Writ Petition No. 9412 of 2013 preferred by the Respondent. No

costs.

Instant writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons firstly three criminal cases were registered against the petitioner

and respondent appointing authority has taken a conscious decision to cancel selection of petitioner on the said post after verification of the documents,

secondly employer has a right to consider antecedents of candidate and can not be compelled to appoint such candidate against whom criminal cases

were registered prior to his selection, lastly in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Abhijit Singh Panwar (Supra), I am not inclined to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction of

this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

Hence, instant writ petition is dismissed.