Hon'ble RASTOGI, J.—Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that despite petitioner being selected for the post of Patwari pursuant to advertisement dt.11.7.2008 issued by RPSC, but at the stage of his character verification, a report dt.26.3.2010 (Ann.R/1) was sent by Addl.S.P., Special Cell, Jaipur that criminal case upon FIR No.198/2006 dt. 20.7.2006 being registered for offences punishable U/Ss 323, 341, 325, 143, IPC, was pending trial against him before a competent court of jurisdiction, which was considered to be a basis to deny appointment to hold that he was not a man of good character, as conveyed vide impugned letter dt.10.8.2010 (Ann.4) by Secretary (Land Records), Board of Revenue, Ajmer. 2. Petitioner was initially appointed in Indian Army on 01.8.1978 and after completion of his tenure, stood retired from army service. To his dismay, FIR-198/2006 dt. 20.7.2006 was registered for offences punishable U/Ss 323, 341, 325 & 147, IPC, because of some family feud. However, since it was a family feud, compromise was arrived at between the parties and offence U/s 147, IPC being not compoundable he was acquitted thereof and for other offences U/Ss 323, 325, & 341, IPC, on the basis of compromise, he was acquitted by competent court of jurisdiction vide judgment dt.03.4.2010 (Ann.5). 3. Pendente criminal case against the petitioner, an advertisement was issued by RPSC on 11.7.2008 (Ann.2) for the post of Patwari in Patwar Training School including 135 posts reserved for ex-service for which he being eligible applied, and participated in written examination held by respondent-RPSC and was finally informed that he has been selected for the post for Patwari having merit at S.NO.1214 vide communication dt.03.12.2009 (Ann.3) and was called upon to complete other formalities and his case was sent for character verification - in course whereof, there being a report dt.26.3.2010 (Ann.R/1) of State Special Cell, Police, Jaipur in regard to pending criminal case (FIR No.198/2006 dt.20.7.2006), it was considered to be the basis to hold that he was not a man of good character communicated vide letter dt. 10.8.2010 (Ann.4) & denied for appointment. Hence this petition. 4. 10.8.2010 (Ann.4) & denied for appointment. Hence this petition. 4. Counsel for petitioner submits that once the petitioner was acquitted by a competent court of jurisdiction, no adverse presumption could be drawn against him and even U/r 273(4)(v) of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 ("Rules, 1957"), convict/ex-prisoners of being a good character are qualified for appointment to the post of Patwari; and the conviction by court of law in itself will not involve refusal of a certificate of good character unless the incumbent was involved in the act of moral turpitude. Taking assistance thereof, Counsel submits that if conviction by a court of law in itself is not sufficient for refusal of certificate of a good character, in case of present petitioner once he stands acquitted by competent court of jurisdiction, irrespective of the fact as to whether one has been acquitted based on compromise or after regular trial, is of no significance and the decision taken by the Committee constituted for examining character verification of candidates in not certifying his character for recruitment to the service vide communication dt.10.8.2010 (Ann.4) is wholly arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. 5. Counsel further submits that the Committee placed reliance upon the decision in Manoj Kr. Sharma vs. State (CWP-4433/2010 decided judgment dt.5.5.2010 at principal seat, Jodhpur) but it was a case where criminal case was pending against incumbent for offences punishable U/Ss 143, 341 & 186, IPC and he was facing trial at the stage when the order was passed by the Court; while in case of present petitioner, there being an order of acquittal in his favour, judgment relied by the Committee taking decision having adverse consequences, is not applicable in the facts of present case. 6. Counsel further submits that pendency of criminal case in itself is not sufficient to debar an incumbent and it appears that R.273 of Rules, 1957 were not brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench at principal seat Jodhpur that when conviction by court of law in itself is not sufficient to refusal of certificate of a good character and that being so, pendency of criminal case unless it falls in the exception referred to in Cl.(v) to R.273(4) of Rules, 1957 may not deprive an incumbent from a certificate of good character so as to hold him unfit for appointment. In support, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court in Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep Kumar ( 2011(4) SCC 644 ). 7. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition. However, this fact has not been controverted that petitioner has participated in the process of selection and was declared successful while his name finds place in select list at S.No.1214 in the category of OBC & Ex-serviceman quota but it was provisional subject to police verification. At this stage, Addl. SP sent a letter dt. 26.3.2010 (Ann.R/1) informing the Board of Revenue about a criminal case for offences punishable U/Ss 323, 341, 325, & 147, IPC, pending trial against him before a competent court of jurisdiction and this police report was sent to the Committee for its consideration but meanwhile he was acquitted by competent court of jurisdiction vide judgment dt.03.4.2010 and it was placed before the Committee when character verification of the petitioner was examined but the Committee constituted for his character verification opined that since petitioner was acquitted based on a compromise that cannot be considered to be a basis for granting him a certificate of good character; and relied upon judgment dt.05.5.2010 in Manoj Kr. Sharma vs. State (CWP-4433/2010) delivered by Co-ordinate Bench of principal seat Jodhpur and held him unfit to be sent for training school; which was communicated on 10.8.2010 (Ann.4). 8. However, it is not the case of respondents that there was any concealment of material facts or misrepresentation at his behest at any later stage in reference to advertisement dt.11.7.2008. 9. Government Counsel submits that judgment in Manoj Kr. Sharma vs. State (supra) was assailed before Division Bench in Special Appeal (Writ) No.286/2010, which was dismissed vide judgment dt.15.2.2011; taking aid whereof, Counsel submits that since this Court has already taken a view that pendency of criminal case was open for the authority to take administrative decision and incumbent has no right to challenge such decision and taking note whereof in the instant case, the Committee has rightly opined that the acquittal based on compromise arrived at between the parties cannot be considered to be a basis for granting him a certificate of good character, and considered him unfit to be sent for training school; and according to Government Counsel, action of respondents being in conformity with the decision of the Court does not warrant any interference. 10. 10. This Court has considered rival contentions of the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Factual matrix of the matter (supra) is not in dispute. Before examining the controversy having been raised herein, it will be relevant to first take note of resume of Rules, 1957 for the purpose of controversy raised. 11. That Rules, 1957 have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) of S.261 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. Part-I deals with Patwaris and its Chapter II of Rules, 1957 lays down conditions of service regarding appointment of Patwari. Rule-3 provides a procedure of holding recruitment and R.4 provides laying down eligibility for appointment and an incumbent on having obtained Patwar School Certificate is eligible for appointment as Patwari, Addl. Patwari or Assistant Office Qanungo, as the case may be. 12. Chapter III is a complete code in itself laying down conditions of service for admission, Training & examination of Patwar School candidates. R.272 provides conditions for admission while R.273 provides procedure for selection of candidates for admission to the School. Character of candidates for different recruitments is regulated in terms of Cl.(v) of sub-R.(4) of R.273 of Rules, 1957, which reads ad infra: "273. Selection of candidature for admission to the School : (4) (v) The character of a candidate for direct recruitment to the service must be such as to qualify him for employment to the post of Patwari. He must produce a certificate of good character from the principal/academic officer of the University, School or College in which he was last educated, and two such certificates written not more than six months prior to the date of application from two responsible persons not connected with his University or College or School and not related to him. Note 1. A conviction by a court of law need not of itself involve the refusal of a certificate of a good character. The circumstances of the conviction should be taken into account and if they involve no moral turpitude or association with crimes of violence or with a movement which has as its object the overthrow by violent means of Government as bylaw established the mere conviction need not be regarded as a disqualification. Note 2. The circumstances of the conviction should be taken into account and if they involve no moral turpitude or association with crimes of violence or with a movement which has as its object the overthrow by violent means of Government as bylaw established the mere conviction need not be regarded as a disqualification. Note 2. Ex-prisoners who by their disciplined life while in prison and by their subsequent good conduct have proved to be completely reformed, should not be discriminated against on grounds of their previous conviction for purposes of employment in the service. Those who are convicted of offences not involving moral turpitude shall be deemed to have been completely reformed on the production of a report to the effect from the Superintendent, "After Care Home" or if there are no such homes in particular district, from the superintendent of police of that district. Those convicted of offences involving moral turpitude shall be required to produce a certificate from the Superintendent, After-Care Home or if there are no such homes from the Superintendent of Police of the district endorsed by the Inspector General of Prisons, to the effect that they are suitable for employment as they have proved to be completely reformed by their disciplined life while in prison and by their subsequent good conduct in on After Care Home." 13. From Scheme of Rules, 1957 (supra), it clearly emerges that character of candidates for direct recruitment to the service on being qualified for admission to the Patwar school has to be examined and the incumbent has to submit/produce a certificate of good character from concerned officials referred to in Cl.(v) of Sub-R.(4) of R.273 (supra), in which he last educated, besides two such certificates of not more than six months prior to date of application, from two responsible persons not connected with his University/ College/School and not related to him. 14. 14. However, from a bare perusal of Cl.(v) of sub-rule (4) of R.273 (supra), it clearly emerges that Rule making authority was conscious of the fact that merely because the incumbent holds conviction or is ex-prisoner, may not hold him disqualified for appointment to the post; and a conviction by a court of law need not of itself involve refusal of a certificate of a good character obviously because circumstances in relation to the conviction are to be looked into and if circumstances involve no moral turpitude or association with crimes of violence or with a movement having its object the overthrow by violent means of Government, mere conviction need not be regarded as a disqualification. 15. Even under Note 2 appended to Cl.(v) of Sub-R.(4) of R.273 (supra), those convicted of offences involving moral turpitude, such ex-prisoner by their disciplined life have been proved to be completely reformed on production of a report to the effect from the Superintendent of "After Care Home" or in case of there being no such Care Homes in particular district, from the Superintendent of Police of that district need not involve the refusal of a certificate of good character. 16. In case of Manoj Kr. Sharma vs. State (supra), writ petitioner failed to place before the Court relevant Scheme of Rules, 1957 (supra), and before induction in service to the post of Patwari, he has to first seek admission to Patwar School, to undertake training and to qualify examination of Patwar School under Chapter III of Part IV of Rules, 1957 and the selection is made through Public Service Commission; and after certificate from Patwar School, makes the incumbent eligible for appointment to the post of Patwari. Thus, in absence thereof, ratio decidendi pleaded by Government Counsel that respondents have rightly taken administrative decision based on judgments in case of Manoj Kr. Sharma vs. State (supra) while holding the petitioner unfit for being sent for training School vide communication impugned, is of no assistance in the facts of instant case. 17. Taking note of relevant provisions of Rules, 1957 (supra), if one is deprived from seeking admission to Patwar School, his right after being finally selected, can certainly been infringed if otherwise eligible to seek admission to Patwar School in terms of procedure provided under Chapter-III of Part-IV of Rules, 1957. 18. 17. Taking note of relevant provisions of Rules, 1957 (supra), if one is deprived from seeking admission to Patwar School, his right after being finally selected, can certainly been infringed if otherwise eligible to seek admission to Patwar School in terms of procedure provided under Chapter-III of Part-IV of Rules, 1957. 18. In instant case, under advertisement dt.11.7.2008 the incumbent has to undergo a procedure for selection provided under Rules, 1957 while being qualified for admission to Patwar School and that is the only way to get final entry into service as Patwari, for becoming a member of Rules, 1957. 19. A look at advertisement dt.11.7.2008 makes it clear that 135 posts were reserved for ex-serviceman - pursuant to which petitioner being one of ex-service personnel & a member of OBC, participated in process of selection initiated by RPSC for admission to Patwar Training School and his name finds place in select list published by RPSC, which was called as provisional being subject to the police verification from concerned authority. 20. However, when case of the petitioner was sent for police verification, Special Cell of Rajasthan Police sent a report that there was a criminal case (FIR NO.198/2006 dt. 20.7.2006) registered for offences punishable U/Ss 323, 341, 325, 143, IPC pending against him as is evident from communication dt. 26.3.2010 (Ann.R/1). 21. As observed (supra), R.273(4)(v) of Rules, 1957 clearly postulates that character of candidate for direct recruitment to the service, one may not be disqualified only on the premise of criminal case being instituted or one being convicted by a court of law and that need not in itself involve refusal of a certificate of good character. 22. The additional feature, in instant case, is that before the Committee could examine reports received of applicant after police verification, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and since offence U/s 147 IPC was not compoundable, he was acquitted and for other offences U/Ss 323, 325 & 341, IPC being compoundable, the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 3.4.2010 (Ann.5). 23. 23. The view/decision taken by respondents vide communication dt.10.08.2010 (Ann.4) that the acquittal being based on compromise will not absolve him from criminal case instituted and pending against him on the date of his participation in the process of selection; and his acquittal in no case can be considered to be the basis for granting him a certificate of good character, in considered opinion of this Court is without substance for the reason that once there was an order of acquittal in his favour passed by a competent court of jurisdiction, it is wholly irrelevant whether the acquittal was based on compromise or after regular trial; and such an acquittal in his favour will not involve refusal of a certificate of good character and what to talk of holding him unfit for appointment. 24. It is relevant to record that respondents have not looked into R.273(4)(v) of Rules, 1957 (supra) while taking its decision impugned and once a conviction by a court of law need not of itself involve refusal of a certificate of a good character, it was the duty of the authority to look into the nature of offence and mere conviction/ accusation as observed need not in itself be regarded as disqualification, as has been the intention of rule making authority having in its wisdom while framing R.273 of Rules, 1957. 25. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The decision taken by respondents as disclosed in communication dt. 10.8.2010 (Ann.4) is quashed & set aside. The respondents are directed to consider candidature of petitioner for appointment based on his merit declared in course of his selection for the post of Patwari pursuant to advertisement dt.11.7.2008 & pass appropriate orders with consequential benefits on notional basis including seniority; however, he will not be entitled for pecuniary benefits in arrears for intervening period during which he has not actually worked. Compliance be made within two months from today. No costs.