Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 745 (RAJ)

Gulab Chand Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2015-03-31

AJAY RASTOGI, J.K.RANKA

body2015
ORDER : Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner who is by caste Meena & member of scheduled tribe was a candidate finally selected for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division-cum-Judicial Magistrate) in the selection process initiated through Rajasthan Public Service Commission ("Commission") pursuant to advertisement dated 19.11.2005 & name of the petitioner finds place at serial no.47 in the order of select list but he was not finally considered to be suitable for appointment on the premise that for his involvement in unfair means & FIR No.357/1999 for offence u/S 3/6 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act,1992 ("Act,1992") came to be registered and on his confession he was convicted by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-2, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide judgment dated 20.04.2001, however, he was extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and was directed to execute bond to the tune of Rs.2,000/- along with surety of the same amount to keep peace & good behaviour for a period of one year & was also directed to deposit Rs.200/- as cost of prosecution. However, there was a mention made by the learned trial Judge in its order that his conviction may not come as disqualification in future while seeking public employment and the select list prepared pursuant to advertisement dated 19.11.05, indisputably contains name of the present petitioner and the State Government sent the list with its comments to the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur on 05.10.2007 & that contain name of the present petitioner at no.47 with a note that he has been convicted for offence u/S 3/6 of the Act,1992 and the matter was placed before the Full Court and as regards the case of the present petitioner is concerned, after considering the antecedents, character verification & medical, the Full Court declined to give concurrence for appointment in Rajasthan Judicial Service to the present petitioner and sent its report to the State Government vide letter dated 19.12.2007. It will be appropriate to quote the view of the Full Court referred to/sent to the State Government vide letter dated 19.12.2007, which reads as under :- "With reference to above cited letter on the subject, I am directed to say that after considering the antecedents, character verification and medical reports of Shri Gulab Chand Meena and Shri Puran Singh (at merit No.47 and 65 respectively), the Hon'ble Full Court has declined to give concurrence for appointment in R.J.S. to Shri Gulab Chand Meena. The Hon'ble Full Court has deferred the case of concurrence in respect of Shri Puran Singh till the out come of the complaints pending against him." 2. Taking note of the view which the High Court expressed & communicated to the State Government vide communication dated 19.12.2007 the State Government also accepted the view expressed and declined to give appointment to the present petitioner and he was informed assigning reason for which he was not found suitable for appointment vide communication dated 20.02.2008 which is a subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the post of Civil Judge Junior Division-cum-Judicial Magistrate is included in the schedule appended to the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules,1955 and as regards the character of the candidate is concerned that is to be examined in terms of R.13 and while list of the selected candidates is sent by the RPSC to the State Government prepared u/R.19 of the Rules the State Government is supposed to consult with the High Court and thereafter has to take its final decision in acting upon the select list for giving appointment to the selected candidates in terms of R.21 of the scheme of Rules,1955. 4. 4. Counsel further submits that once the State Government has expressed its view in its letter sent to the High Court dated 05.10.2007 recording its satisfaction despite the fact he has been convicted under section 3/6 of the Act,1992 the matter was sent for consultation with the High Court but the final opinion is to be formed by the State Government and no reasons have been assigned even in the communication made to the petitioner as evident from the document dated 20.02.2008 nor justification has been offered in the reply filed by the State Government and in absence of independent decision being taken, acting upon on the dotted lines in terms of the report sent by the High Court without application of mind is wholly arbitrary & requires interference by this Court. 5. Counsel further submits that the High Court was supposed to be consulted by the State Government who is the appointing authority & here in the instant case the appointing authority was satisfied & found him fit for appointment and it is not a case of concealment on his part and that being so still withholding his appointment taking into consideration the view expressed by the Full Court as contemplated u/R.21 of the Rules,1955 without taking its independent decision is wholly arbitrary & is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 6. Counsel for respondent on the other hand opposed the writ petition & submits that the petitioner wants to join the judicial service & his overall conduct is of utmost importance and having been convicted for offence u/S 3/6 of the Act,1992 mere grant of benefit of probation u/S.4 of the Act,1992 will not absolve him from getting a clean slate of good character for adjudging his overall suitability to join service & in support of submission placed reliance upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.996/2005 decided on 18.04.2013. 7. Counsel further submits that this Court is not sitting as a court of appeal over the decision making process and once the view expressed by the High Court has been accepted by the State Government declining to give appointment to the petitioner that itself is sufficient application of mind of the appointing authority in taking its decision decline to consider him for appointment and that being in conformity with the scheme of Rules,1955 it does not require any interference by this Court. 8. We have considered the rival submissions & also perused the material available on record & do not find substance in the submission made by petitioner's counsel for the reason that the present petitioner wants to join judicial after being convicted for offence u/S 3/6 of the Act,1992 and mere grant of benefit of probation u/S.4 under Probation of Offenders Act may not give him a clean slate for judging the overall character which is of utmost importance & to be taken into consideration while giving appointment to a candidate in the judicial service and we do not find any error being committed in the decision making process adopted by the respondent in taking decision declining to give appointment to the present petitioner. 9. As regards the further submission made that the State Government has not taken its independent decision, in our considered view is also of no substance for the reason that after the select list was sent to the High Court vide communication dated 05.10.2007 the matter was examined by the Full Court to consider his candidature for appointment and the Full Court declined to give concurrence to the name of the present petitioner primarily for the reason that he adopted unfair means in public examination and was convicted for offence u/S 3/6 of the Act,1992 and took decision not to extend concurrence to the name of the petitioner and the State Government has acted upon it in taking its decision declining to consider him for appointment & we do not find any error being committed in the decision making process adopted in declining to give appointment to the present petitioner. 10. We would like to further add that mere selection does not confer right but after selection if he is denied appointment some tangible evidence in support thereof has to come on record and we find here in the instant case that there is sufficient material available on record to support the basis for declining to consider the present petitioner for appointment despite being selected in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955. 11. We do not find any substance in the writ petition & the same is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.