Rinku Kumar Son of Ganga Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:7054]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2354/2025

¶4

Rinku Kumar Son Of Ganga Lal, Aged About 25 Years, Address - Lalita Mudia, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) - 321601.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302005.

¶8

Secretary To Government, School Education Department And Panchayati Raj (Elementary Education) Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302005.

¶9

Secretary To Government, Department Of Personnel (Dop), Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302005.

¶10

Director, Elementary Education Department And Panchayati Raj (Elementary Education) Department, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Rajasthan) - 334001

¶11

District Education Officer (Deo), Elementary Education, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) - 321001.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Tribhuvan Narayan Singh
For Respondent(s)	:

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶15

Judgment

¶16

18/02/2025

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to advertisement dated 31.12.2021 qua Rajasthan Upper and Primary School Teacher Direct Recruitment 2021-2022, the petitioner has applied for the post of General Teacher Level-I.

¶18

It is further submitted that during the course of document verification, despite being eligible, candidature of the petitioner

¶19

(2 of 4) [CW-2354/2025]

¶20

[2025:RJ-JP:7054]

¶21

was not considered by the respondents due to pendency of criminal case against the petitioner. In this regard, petitioner being aggrieved of the same, filed a petition before the High Court (SBCWP No.6530/2022) wherein, vide order dated 28.02.2023, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has disposed the petition with categorical directions. The same are reproduced as below:-

¶22

“Therefore, the instant writ petition is disposed

¶23

of with following directions:-

¶24

(A) Petitioner would be at liberty to move a representation before respondents for reconsideration of his candidature for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III Level-I, in the light of his acquittal from the criminal case No.115/2021 for offence under Section 376 of IPC, vide judgment dated 15.06.2022,

¶25

(B) The Committee/Appointing Authority on the receipt of such representation, may reconsider the case of petitioner for appointment, in the light of Clause 2(ii) of the circular dated 04.12.2019 , and if finds that the petitioner is eligible/suitable for appointment, appropriate order of appointment be passed accordingly within a period of three months from receipt of certified copy of this order.”

¶26

Furthermore, it is submitted that complying with the above said order, competent authority/ respondents have passed an order dated 06.10.2023, howsoever, while passing the said order respondents have not followed the circular dated 04.12.2019 in true letter and spirit and have not considered the relevant facts qua acquittal of petitioner and that petitioner was given benefit of doubt, therefore the said order is neither speaking nor reasoned

[2025:RJ-JP:7054]

[CW-2354/2025]

(3 of 4)

(Annexure-11). Resultantly, the said impugned order cannot be made applicable qua the petitioner.

¶31

Additionally, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Manju Kanwar vs. state of Rajasthan and Ors. registered in SBCWP No.5783/2022, Pawan Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., registered in SBCWP No. 1000/2019 and Hon’ble Apex Court judgment passed in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 .

¶32

Heard and considered.

¶33

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, upon a perusal of the impugned order dated 06.10.2023, this Court has made the following observations:-

¶34

6.1. That the petitioner has appeared in the 2021-2022 examination for the post of Teacher Grade Level-I.

¶35

6.2. That fact qua criminal cases were duly disclosed by the petitioner in the application form.

¶36

6.3. That petitioner was selected on merit and was accordingly called for document verification.

¶37

6.4. That petitioner was booked and had faced trial for the offence registered under Section 376 read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code qua FIR No. 85/2017, wherein petitioner was granted acquittal after giving benefit of doubt vide order dated 15.06.2022.

¶38

6.5. That taking holistic view of the directions given in first round of litigation, screening committee has passed an order while placing reliance upon the principle enunciated in Delhi Administration vs. Sushil Kumar reported in (1996) 11 SCC

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:7054]

[CW-2354/2025]

605., and judgment passed in Civil Appeal 67/2028 titled as Chandigarh Administration and Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar and

¶43

Ors., and held that acquittal in criminal case does not entitle candidate for appointment and it is open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine accordingly whether the candidate is suitable for appointment on the said post. Moreover, Court also held that the decision of screening committee to be treated as final unless any malafide is reflected.

¶44

Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court if of the view that the impugned order dated 06.10.2023 does not reflect any malafides and circular dated 04.12.2019 was duly followed while passing the said order. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the present petition.

¶45

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶46

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶47

DIKSHA MISHRA /216

Rinku Kumar Son of Ganga Lal v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku Kumar Son of Ganga Lal v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Rajasthan Vs Shayam Narain Sukhwal Son of Shri Bhori Lal Sukhwal

Geeta Devi Vs State Pension Departmentors

Ms Shikha Kumari Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Prem Chand Vs State Power and Energors

Manoj Mudgal Vs State Education Departmentors

Gangaram Son of Shri Tundaram Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation