Pharsa Ram @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs :-

“(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order passed by the District Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur Rural dated 7.11.2016

(Annex.5) as well as arbitrary, malafide and illegal process of selection adopted by the respondent may kindly be quashed and set aside with all

their natural consequences.

(b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, therespondents may kindly be directed to consider candidature of the petitioner for the post of Constable

in the criteria of merit with all consequential benefits;

(c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondentsmay kindly be directed to calculate and pay entire salary to the petitioner treating him to

be in service w.e.f. the date similarly situated persons have been provided appointment with all consequential benefits.

(d) Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon`ble Court maydeem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in

favour of the petitioner.â€​

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents need to decide his claim in light of judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Special Leave Petition (C) No.20525/2011, decided on 21.07.2016), wherein following directions were given:

“30. 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:

(1) Information given to the employer by a candidate as toconviction, 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.

(2) While passing order of termination of services orcancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special

circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

(3) The employer shall take into consideration theGovernment orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

(4) In case there is suppression or false information ofinvolvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before

filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case

may be adopted:-

(a) In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had beenrecorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed

would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false

information by condoning the lapse.

(b) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is nottrivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

(c) If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involvingmoral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a

case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and

may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

(5) In a case where the employee has made declarationtruthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents,

and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

(6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared incharacter verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in

facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.

(7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect tomultiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an

employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have

adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.

(8) If criminal case was pending but not known to thecandidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing

authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.

(9) In case the employee is confirmed in service, holdingDepartmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or

dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.

(10) For determining suppression or false informationattestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was

required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same

can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such case action cannot be taken on basis of

suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.

(11) Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri orsuggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.â€​

Counsel for the petitioner further states that the controversy in issue has also been decided by this Court in Rinku Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7978/2014, decided on 22.9.2016), thus, made a limited prayer that the respondents be directed to decide

petitioner’s case in light of aforementioned precedent law by passing a speaking order.

Counsel for the respondent assures this Court that objective consideration shall be made in light of the precedent law of Hon’ble Apex Court in

Avtar Singh (supra) and Rinku Singh (supra) passed by this Court.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider afresh case of petitioner and pass a speaking

order while keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws within a period of 60 days from today strictly in accordance with law.