JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing letter dated 2.1.2012 (Annex.-6) issued by the Deputy General Manager, R.S.R.T.C., Headquarters Jaipur, whereby, the Zonal Manager, R.S.R.T.C., Bikaner Zone is directed not to allow the petitioner to join the services due to pendency of Criminal case against him. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644 and judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Meena v. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 2012 WLC (Raj.) UC 154 , so also, judgment rendered by this Bench in the case of Suryabhan Singh Solanki v. State of Rajasthan and others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9304/2008, decided on 19.10.2011 ; and, submits that the respondents cannot deny the appointment or joining to the petitioner on the ground that criminal case is pending against the petitioner for committing offence under Sections 451, 323 and 143, I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the position of law adjudicated in the above-cited cases but submits that criminal case is pending against the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled to join duties. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it emerges from the facts that the petitioner was selected in pursuance of advertisement No. 219/2009-2010 which is issued by the respondents for direct recruitment on the posts of Conductor. However, due to pendency of criminal case in pursuance of F.I.R. No. 236/2008, registered at Police Station, Nokha for alleged offences under Sections 451, 323 and 143, I.P.C. respondent No. 2 refused to allow the petitioner to join duties even after his selection for the post of Conductor. 5. In the case of Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following adjudication : "The respondent filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed on 13.2.2004. Against that order the respondent filed a writ petition which has been allowed by the Delhi High Court and hence this appeal. Against that order the respondent filed a writ petition which has been allowed by the Delhi High Court and hence this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the respondent should have disclosed the fact of his involvement in the criminal case even if he had later been acquitted. Hence, It was submitted that his candidature was rightly cancelled. 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 been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a 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. In this connection, we may refer to the character 'Jean Valjean' in Victor Hugo's novel 'Les Miserables', in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life.The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life.We may also here refer to the case of Welsh students mentioned by Lord Denning in his book 'Due Process of Law'. It appears that some students of Wales were very enthusiastic about the Wales language and they were upset because the radio programmes were being broadcast in English language and not in Welsh. Then came up to London and invaded the High Court. They were found guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced to prison for three months by the High Court judge. They filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. Allowing the appeal, Lord Denning observed "I come now to Mr. Watkin Powell's third point. He says that the sentences were excessive. I do not think they were excessive, at the time they were given and in the circumstances then existing. Here was a deliberate interference with the course of justice in a case which was no concern of theirs. Allowing the appeal, Lord Denning observed "I come now to Mr. Watkin Powell's third point. He says that the sentences were excessive. I do not think they were excessive, at the time they were given and in the circumstances then existing. Here was a deliberate interference with the course of justice in a case which was no concern of theirs. It was necessary for the Judge to show and to show to all students everywhere - that this kind of thing cannot be tolerated. Let students demonstrate, if they please, for the causes in which they believe. Let them make their protests as they will. But they must do it by lawful means and not by unlawful. If they strike at the course of justice in this land and I speak both for England and Wales - they strike at the roots of society itself, and they bring down that which protects them. It is only by the maintenance of law and order that they are privileged to be students and to study and live in peace. So let them support the law and not strike it down. But now what is to be done? The law has been vindicated by the sentences which the Judge passed on Wednesday of last week. He has shown that law and order must be maintained, and will be maintained. But on this appeal, things are changed. These students here no longer defy the law. They have appealed to this Court and shown respect for it. They have already served a week in prison. I do not think it necessary to keep them inside it any longer. These young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no violence, dishonesty or vice in them. On the contrary, there was much that we should applaud. They wish to do all they can to preserve the Welsh language. Well may they be proud of it. It is the language of the bards of the poets and the singers - more melodious by far than our rough English tongue. On high authority, it should be equal in Wales with English. They have done wrong-very wrong : In going to the extreme they did. But, that having been shown, I think we can, and should, show mercy on them. On high authority, it should be equal in Wales with English. They have done wrong-very wrong : In going to the extreme they did. But, that having been shown, I think we can, and should, show mercy on them. We should permit them to go back to their studies, to their parents and continue the good course which they have so wrongly disturbed." [Vide : Morris v. Crown Office, (1970) 2 O.B. 114] In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning. As already observed above, youth often commit indiscretions, which are often condoned. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34 I.P.C. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter." Aforesaid judgment was followed by this Bench in the case of Survabhan Singh (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9304/2008, decided on 19.10.2011 . The coordinate Bench of this Court also considered the case of identical situation in Pramod Kumar Meena's case (supra) and held that pendency of criminal case does not debar candidate from seeking appointment. 6. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that communication dated 2.1.2012 (Annex.-6), so far as it relates to the petitioner, is not sustainable in the eye of law because admittedly the so called criminal case registered for offences under Sections 323, 451 and 143, I.P.C. is pending. 7. In the result, therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Order/communication dated 2.1.2012 (Annex.6) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join duties forthwith.Writ petition allowed. *******