Dismissed

State of Rajasthan v. Devraj Bairwa Son of Shri Mangal Lal

Rajasthan HC16 Apr 2026SAW/366/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A selected Lecturer (Drawing) candidate denied joining due to a pending Section 307 IPC case was acquitted for want of evidence during the writ petition. The Division Bench held the acquittal was honourable, found Methu Medha inapplicable, affirmed the Single Judge's directions to allow him to join with notional benefits, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Respondent's appointment as Lecturer (Drawing) with posting and consequential notional benefits, as directed by the Single Judge, stands confirmed.

State of Rajasthan Vs Devraj Bairwa Son of Shri… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:16104-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 366/2020

¶4

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Government, School Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶5

Secretary To The Government, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶6

Director, Secondary Education Department, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶7

----Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Devraj Bairwa Son Of Shri Mangal Lal, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Chhaparwada, Post Bazed, Tehsil Talera, District Bundi.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Sharma for Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG For Respondent(s) : Ms. Alankrita Sharma

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶13

Judgment

¶14

16/04/2026

¶15

Instant DB Special Appeal (Writ) is filed aggrieved from order dated 16.09.2019 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17622/2016 titled as "Devraj Bairwa Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors." and following directions were challenged by appellants (non-petitioners):

¶16

"6. I have considered the submissions and find that the petitioner has already been acquitted of the charges/levelled against him and one post of Lecturer (School Education) in the subject of Drawing is lying vacant. In view of the honourable acquittal of the petitioner, the order passed by the respondents-State dated 24.11.2016 denying petitioner appointment despite of having been duly

¶17

(2 of 6)

¶18

[2026:RJ-JP:16104-DB]

¶19

[SAW-366/2020]

¶20

selected is set aside. The respondents are now directed to pass orders and allow the petitioner to join duties as Lecturer (School Education) in the subject of Drawing and may be allotted the place of posting according to his merit and choice. The petitioner will also be entitled to all consequential notional benefits."

¶21

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant while relying upon judgment in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Methu Medha reported as AIRONLINE 2021 SC 854 has submitted that respondent-writ petitioner has filed a writ petition for seeking appointment on post of Lecturer (School Education) in the subject of Drawing, which was denied by the appellants on the ground that a criminal case under section 307 IPC was registered against the respondent. He further submitted that after police verification, when it has come to the notice of appellants that a criminal case arising out of FIR No. 161/2016 registered at PS KeshoraiPatan, District Bundi was pending the appointment was withdrawn. He further submitted that the appellants have relied upon guidelines as prevalent on date of recruitment and on the basis of guidelines, the candidature of respondent was rejected. He also submitted that the judgment dated 27.09.2018 in Sessions Case No. 195/2017 arising out of said FIR also indicated that the acquittal is not an honorable acquittal, so respondent is not entitled for any relief in a writ petition and learned Single Judge has committed serious error while allowing the writ petition and issuing direction to the appellants.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent-Writ Petitioner has submitted that party has withdrawn the

¶23

[2026:RJ-JP:16104-DB]

¶24

[SAW-366/2020]

¶25

(3 of 6)

¶26

instant case from her and now she is not representing Respondent.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgment as referred by learned counsel for the appellants.

¶28

Brief facts of the case are that the RPSC has issued an advertisement on 16.10.2015 inviting applications for recruitment on the post of Lecturer (School Education) for various subjects under the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred as "Rules of 1970"). The petitioner has also applied in drawing subject and after being successful and securing merit at serial No. 67, the name of petitioner was recommended by RPSC to the Director, School Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. The Director, School Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner has issued an appointment order on 23.10.2016 and allocated Government Senior Secondary School, Kethuda, District Bundi to the petitioner. The appointment was subject to a specific condition that the head of Institution shall allow joining to the candidate only after receiving a report of good character from concerned Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police, Bundi, has sent a report on 28.10.2016 indicating that FIR No. 161/2016 was registered at Police Station, Keshorai Patan, District Bundi for offence under Section 147, 148, 143, 341, 323, 324, 326 & 307 IPC against the respondentwrit petitioner.

¶29

The respondent-writ petitioner has filed a writ petition as he was not allowed to join. During pendency of the writ petition,

¶30

[2026:RJ-JP:16104-DB]

¶31

[SAW-366/2020]

¶32

(4 of 6)

¶33

a criminal case registered against the respondent (writ petitioner), was decided on 27.09.2018 by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhundi, Camp KeshoraiPatan, District Bundi, and respondent was acquitted from the charges for want of evidence. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to issue an appointment order.

¶34

In case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Methu Medha (supra), after considering judgment in case of Deputy Inspector General of Police and Anr. Vs. S. Samuthiram reported as (2013) 1 SCC 598 , State of Assam and Anr. Vs. Raghava Rajgopalachari, reported as (1972) 7 SLR 44 , and Robert Stuart Vs. Emperor reported as (1934) 61 ILR Cal 168 , has referred context of expression "honorably acquitted" after observation of Lord Williams J. and same is reproduced as under:

¶35

“The expression “honourably acquitted” is one which is unknown to courts of justice. Apparently it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extra judicial tribunals. We said in our judgment that we accepted the explanation given by the Appellant believed it to be true and considered that it ought to have been accepted by the Government authorities and by the magistrate. Further we decided that the Appellant had not misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the effect of our judgment was that the Appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to what Government authorities term “honourably acquitted”.

¶36

(5 of 6)

¶37

[2026:RJ-JP:16104-DB]

¶38

[SAW-366/2020]

¶39

After considering the judgment in case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others reported as (2016) 8 SCC 471, State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Lavkush Meena reported as 2021 (4) Scale 634 and Commissioner of Police Vs. Rajkumar reported as 2021 (9) Scale 713 Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Methu Medha (supra) has observed as under:

¶40

"21. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear the respondent who wishes to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude and have impeccable character and integrity. A person having a criminal antecedents would not be fit in this category. The employer is having right to consider the nature of acquittal or decide until he is completely exonerated because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee and the decision of the Committee would be final unless mala fide. In the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra), this Court has taken the same view, as reiterated in the case of Mehar Singh (supra). The same view has again been reiterated by this Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra).

¶41

22. As discussed hereinabove, the law is well-settled. If a person is acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt, from the charge of an offence involving moral turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him for the employment, that too in disciplined force. The employer is having a right to consider his candidature in terms of the circulars issued by the Screening Committee. The mere disclosure of the offences alleged and the result of the trial is not sufficient. In the said situation, the employer cannot be compelled to give appointment to the candidate. Both the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court have not considered the said legal position, as discussed above in the orders impugned.

¶42

(6 of 6)

¶43

[2026:RJ-JP:16104-DB]

¶44

[SAW-366/2020]

¶45

Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 3897 of 2013 and Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1090 of 2013 are not sustainable in law, as discussed hereinabove."

¶46

A Co-ordinate Division bench of this court has also examined these issues in case of Babbal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, DB Special Appeal (writ) No. 971 of 202 2 and Shaitan Lal Khurach Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and other connected matters DB Special Appeal (writ) No. 732 of 2022 , wherein it was held that the employer is duty bound to consider candidature of an individual who has secured acquittal in a criminal case.

¶47

The order of acquittal as placed on record clearly indicates that the respondent was acquitted in clean manner and there was no evidence in case against the respondent. Thus, the acquittal was honorable one. The judgment in case of Union of India and others Vs. Methu Medha (supra), as referred by learned counsel for appellants is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the learned single judge has not committed any error while allowing the writ petition in favor of respondent.

¶48

In view of discussion made herein above, the instant DB Special Appeal (writ) is hereby dismissed with pending applications, if any.

¶49

No order as to costs.

¶50

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶51

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶52

CHETNA BEHRANI /11

State of Rajasthan v. Devraj Bairwa Son of Shri Mangal Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan v. Devraj Bairwa Son of Shri Mangal Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Rajasthan Vs Raghuvar Dayal Sharma S/O Radhey Shyam Sharma

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs Shri Madan Mohan Gupta

Sonu S/O Rameshchand Agrawal Vs Ramnarayan S/O Heera

Ashok Parwal (Ay 2016-17) S/O Shri Radhey Shyam Parwal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

State of Raj Vs M/S Land Mark Builders Ors.

Rajasthan Chess Association Vs Ashok Kuamr Bhargava Son of Late Shri T. N. Bhargava