Suman Kumar Meena Son of Shri Kishanlal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JP:3176]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27573/2018

Suman Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Kishanlal Meena, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Sujanpura, Post Sharakar, Tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

Director General Of Police, Headquarters, Tonk Road, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

Inspector General Of Police, Bharatpur Range, Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶10

Superintendent Of Police, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Devendra Kumar Bharadwaj
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sarma and
		Mr. Parth Sharma for
		Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma,AAG

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶14

Order

¶15

21/01/2026

¶16

Instant writ petition is filed with following prayer: “(i) By issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction order dated 03.12.2018 issued by the Superintendent of Police, District Bharatpur may kindly be held arbitrary and illegal and same may kindly be quashed and set aside; and (ii) By issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to treat the petitioner as eligible for appointment on the post of Constable and accordingly they may also be directed

(2 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:3176]

[CW-27573/2018]

to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner on the post of Constable on the basis of his merit in the select list and he may also be given all the benefits which are being given to the similarly situated persons whose names are appeared in the select list.”

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon judgment dated 13.08.2025 in DB Special Appeal Writ No. 971/2022 (Babbal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and others) submits that the controversy raised herein is already settled by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court and the petitioner is entitled for appointment on post of Constable. He further placed reliance upon order dated 19.11.2025 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4072/2024 (Suresh Kumar Meena vs. The State of Rajasthan and others) and order dated 18.12.2025 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4148/2019 (Narendra Singh Rawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) passed by this Court and submitted that the Writ Petition be allowed as the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal case.

¶22

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and he placed reliance upon reply and submitted that the petitioner was denied appointment due to criminal case and the order of acquittal in favour of petitioner is not clean. He also submitted that the petitioner may submit a representation in light of the judgments as referred by him and the respondents will consider the representation.

[2026:RJ-JP:3176]

[CW-27573/2018]

(3 of 5)

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

¶27

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has appeared as a candidate for Constable recruitment examination, 2018 initiated vide notification dated 25.05.2018. After undergoing entire process, the petitioner was finally selected but his candidature was rejected primarily on the ground that a criminal case arising out of FIR No.110/2012 was registered at P.S. Mahuwa, Dist. Dausa wherein a charge-sheet has been filed and sessions case No.24/2012 was registered. As per petitioner he was acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui. Dist. Dausa on 08.05.2014 from all charges. The petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India :(2016) 8 SCC 471.

¶28

The short controversy in the instant case is that : Whether registration of a criminal case against the petitioner and acquittal thereafter is a sufficient ground to deny appointment on the post of Constable (General)?

¶29

Admittedly, the petitioner has participated in the constable recruitment examination, pursuant to recruitment notification dated 25.05.2018. The candidature of present petitioner was not considered as there was a criminal case against the petitioner arising out of FIR No.110/2012 registered at P.S. Mahuwa. The list for District Bharatpur is enclosed as Annexure-3 wherein at serial number 78 name of Suman Kumar Meena is placed and his selection as ST-M

(4 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:3176]

[CW-27573/2018]

Category. The order dated 03.12.2018 indicated that the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur has taken note of order of acquittal dated 08.05.2014 but found that the acquittal was not honouable acquittal.

¶34

An identical issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 971/2022, Babbal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and also in judgment dated 29.08.2025 in DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 732/2022, Shaitan LaL Kurach Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and other connected matters.

¶35

Considering the material placed on record, the respondents are duty-bound to consider the candidature of a petitioner who has been acquitted in a criminal case. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be disposed of on the basis of the ratio laid down in cases of Shaitan LaL Kurach Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) and Babbal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra).

¶36

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is hereby allowed with direction to the respondents to reexamine the case of the present petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable, in light of the judgments referred hereinabove, and also circular dated 04.12.2019, issued by DOP (K-2). The petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh representation along with a copy of this order within a period of 60 days to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2, shall consider and decide the representation within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in accordance with law as discussed hereinabove.

[2026:RJ-JP:3176]

[CW-27573/2018]

(5 of 5)

If the petitioner is found eligible for appointment on post of Constable then same be accorded with notional benefits as directed by Division Bench of this Court in aforementioned cases.

¶41

The present writ petition with pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶42

No order as to costs.

¶43

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶44

PREETI VALECHA /57

Suman Kumar Meena Son of Shri Kishanlal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Kumar Meena Son of Shri Kishanlal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra @ Kadu S/O Shri Bhairo Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sagar Singh Meena Son of Shri Hansram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Narendra Singh S/O Shri Bhom Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Paylet Meena S/O Vishram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Purushottam Dadhich S/O Mahaveer Prasad Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Kumar Yadav @ Raju S/O Shri Tejpal Vs State of Rajasthan