AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against non-grant of appointment to the petitioner pursuant to his selection on the post of
Constable in the category of ‘Outstanding Sports person’ vide final select-list Annex.-4.
It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petition that while filing on-line application for the said post, the petitioner inadvertently indicated ‘No’ in the
column pertaining to ‘Whether any FIR has been ever lodged against you ?’, however, during the on-line information sought during police
verification, the petitioner disclosed the one decided case and two pending matters against him. However, the respondents despite the above
information submitted by the petitioner, have not dealt with the said aspect of the matter and have not issued the appointment order to the petitioner.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that mere inadvertent non-mentioning of FIR lodging by the petitioner, cannot be a reason to deny
appointment to the petitioner, which aspect has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi &
Anr. v. Dhaval Singh : AIR 1999 SC 2326 and that the pendency of the criminal case also cannot be a ground for denying appointment to the
petitioner, which issue also stands concluded in the case of Mukesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2016(3) WLC 345, which judgment has
been followed in Rakesh Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No.11753/2015, decided on 11.11.2016.
It is submitted that the action of the respondents in not deciding the representation and/or non-grant of appointment to the petitioner being contrary to
the settled position of law cannot be sustained.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the representation / submission made by the petitioner disclosing the pending criminal
case and as to whether he can be granted appointment or not, would be decided by the competent authority within a given time frame.
In view of the above fact situation, wherein the petitioner has already represented to the respondents regarding pending criminal cases and law in this
regard as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhaval Singh (supra) and Mukesh Kumar (supra) are clear, the respondents are
required to deal with the same appropriately and expeditiously.
Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of. The petitioner may file a fresh representation raising all the issues as raised in the
present writ petition with the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur within a period of one week and it would be required of the respondents to decide the
said representation made by the petitioner appropriately keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court within a
period of a two weeks thereafter.
In case, the petitioner is found eligible for appointment, he shall be entitled to all the notional benefits as granted to the persons recommended
alongwith him.