Dismissed

Mohd. Saleem S/O Modh. Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC29 May 2023SAW/403/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Special Leave Appeal against a dismissal of a writ petition was heard by the Rajasthan High Court. The appellant sought to challenge the cancellation of his police appointment made in 2002, which was subsequently revoked in 2010 after the Supreme Court upheld his earlier disqualification due to a lack of 'honourable acquittal'. The High Court declined to intervene.

What did the court decide?

Readings left to workout available remedies under law; no specific relief granted.

Mohd. Saleem S/O Modh. Ali Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/012305]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 403/2023

¶4

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20864/2013

¶6

Mohd. Saleem S/o Modh. Ali, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of C-36, Rana Colony, Nahari Ka Naka, Shaastri Nagar, Jaipur.

¶7

----Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Pr. Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶11

Superintendent Of Police, Head Quarters, Jaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shobit Tiwari Advocate.

¶14

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Judgment

29/05/2023

Heard.

This appeal is directed against order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner against order of canceling appointment, has been dismissed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even though in the first round of litigation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held against the appellant/writ petitioner and upheld the decision not to appoint the appellant/writ petitioner on account of pendency of the criminal cases, during pendency of the petition in

[2023/RJJP/012305]

[SAW-403/2023]

(2 of 3)

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he was given appointment on 22.11.2002, in view of policy decision under which more than 100 persons were given appointment. This decision to give appointment was based on policy decision and, therefore, notwithstanding the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, subsequent cancellation of appointment was unsustainable in law.

¶24

We have gone through the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 10.12.2009. The order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as under:-

¶25

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 9.7.2001 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench whereby the appeal filed by the appellants herein has been dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been upheld.

¶27

It appears that the respondent applied for the post of Constable but his selection was canceled by order dated 4.3.1998 on the ground that his candidature was contrary to the Memorandum dated 29.4.1995 issued by the Office of The Director General of Police Rajasthan. The aforesaid Memorandum states that if a candidate is involved in a crime of violence which includes Section 323 IPC then he is not eligible for police service. However, it has also been stated therein that if after the trial the candidate is acquitted honourable then the candidate may be considered for recruitment into Police by taking the approval of the next higher officer to the appointment authority.

¶28

In this case we have seen the judgment of the Trial Court in Crl. Case No.607/1999 and find that the respondent was not acquitted honourably. It appears that there was some compromise and certain witnesses turned hostile. The injured witness Tahir Ali was held to be not reliable. This, in

(3 of 3)

[2023/RJJP/012305]

[SAW-403/2023]

our opinion, means that the respondent-accused was given benefit of doubt and not that he was acquitted honourably.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Dharam Pal Vs. State of Rajasthan RLW 2000 (2) 815 has quashed the sais Memorandum dated 29.4.1995. We respectfully do not agree with the aforesaid Full Bench decision of the High Court and hold that the said Memorandum dated 29.4.1995 is perfectly valid as we are also of the opinion that a person who is involved in a criminal offence certainly cannot be taken into police service.

¶34

For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench as also of the learned Single Judge and allow this appeal. No order as to costs.”

¶35

Apparently, the order was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 10.12.2009 and the appointment order was issued in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner on 22.11.2002. This was not brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It appears that after the state’s appeal was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that the decision not to grant appointment to the appellant/writ petitioner on the basis of criminal case is just and proper, the order of appointment was cancelled by the Government on 03.06.2010.

¶36

The view taken by the learned Single Judge, therefore, does not warrant any interference. Leaving the appellant/writ petitioner to workout such remedy as may be available to him under the law, the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶37

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶38

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ

¶39

SANJAY KUMAWAT-3

Mohd. Saleem S/O Modh. Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Saleem S/O Modh. Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Bank of Baroda Vs Smt. Bidami Devi Wife of Late Shri Surajmal Gurjar

Prakash Chand Kumbhar S/O Shriya Ram Vs Union of India

Rohitashw Kumar Dhankar S/O Rameshwar Lal Dhankar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahalaxmi Minerals Vs Union of India

M/S G.M. Mines Vs Union of India

Sitaram Sharma Son of Late Shri Kedar Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan