Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1283 (RAJ)

Arjun Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2011-07-05

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 10.8.2010 (Annex. 5) issued by the Secretary (Land Records), Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer whereby respondent No. 3, declined to send the petitioner for training on the ground that prior to appointment of petitioner, an F.I.R. No. 326 dated 1.10.2003 was filed against the petitioner under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C. After investigation, challan was filed and in trial a fine of Rs. 300/- was imposed upon the petitioner and this fact came to the knowledge of respondents upon receiving police verification. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be termed as criminal on the basis of said criminal case so also petitioner cannot be debarred forever for employment, due to filing challan against him and upon order of fine of Rs. 300/- imposed by the criminal Court. Further it is submitted that in view of the latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in ( 2011) 4 SCC 644-Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar , the impugned order dated 10.8.2010 deserves to be quashed and respondents may be directed to send petitioner in Patwar training and after completion of training, the petitioner may be given appointment on the post of Patwari. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer of petitioner and submits that the petitioner is admitting the fact of criminal case and trial in which fine of Rs. 300/- was imposed against him in the said criminal case. Therefore, the order impugned does not require any interference and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order whereby the petitioner's candidature was rejected solely on the ground of above criminal case for sending him in Patwar training and appointment on the post of Patwari. 6. In the other impugned dated 10.8.2010 (Annex.5), it is abundantly clear that reason for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for sending him in training of Patwari is that a criminal case was registered against him under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C. in which after investigation challan was filed and a fine of Rs. 300/- was imposed against him. 7. In the other impugned dated 10.8.2010 (Annex.5), it is abundantly clear that reason for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for sending him in training of Patwari is that a criminal case was registered against him under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C. in which after investigation challan was filed and a fine of Rs. 300/- was imposed against him. 7. I have perused the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in my opinion, as per the verdict of Apex Court, the modern approach is required to be taken into consideration that if any offence is committed by minor or teenager, then he should not be deprived from appointment forever solely on the ground that a criminal case is registered against him in which he faced trial and minor penalty was imposed against him prior to his appointment. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the identical situation and categorically held in the case of Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar (supra) asunder : "8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature of manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives." 8. In this view of the matter, while following the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar (supra), this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 10.8.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to send the petitioner for training and after completion of training, the petitioner may be considered for appointment on the post of Patwari.Writ petition allowed. *******