Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 946 (RAJ)

Durga Shankar Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2015-04-28

ATUL KUMAR JAIN, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. This intra-court Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 13.02.2015, by which she has dismissed the writ petition, against the order dated 22.01.2013, cancelling the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Agriculture Supervisor. Learned Single Judge found that the petitioner did not appear for verification of the documents on the date fixed on 15.01.2013, and did not accept the contention that since he was in judicial custody, in respect of a criminal case, he could not have informed the respondents about his inability to remain present on that date. It was further found that the petitioner had knowledge about the cancellation of his candidature in February, 2013, and presented a writ petition in March, 2014, without any satisfactory explanation for delay. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant did not have any knowledge of the date, on which he had to appear for verification of the documents. He was in judicial custody in a criminal case, in which he was acquitted, and further that, he was waiting for the decision on his representation, on which a verification was sought about his arrest and remaining in judicial custody from the District Superintendent of Police, Bundi. On receiving the letter from the District Superintendent of Police, Bundi on 19.09.2013, by the Joint Director, Agriculture (Administration), Jaipur, when the appointment was not given, he approached the High Court. 4. We do not find that the ground that the petitioner was not aware of the date fixed for verification of the documents, was pressed before learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge, as the letter was received, but was not opened by the family members, who are illiterate. It is further submitted that the petitioner waited for the result of the verification of the period of his judicial custody, and that, since even after verification, the appointment was not given, he had approached the Court within reasonable time. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner waited for the result of the verification of the period of his judicial custody, and that, since even after verification, the appointment was not given, he had approached the Court within reasonable time. 5. We do not find that the petitioner had given any satisfactory explanation, either to the appointing authority, or before learned Single Judge, to be considered for his absence, and that, reasons as to why he could not make a representation, after receiving the letter, intimating him about the date for verification of the documents. 6. We have examined the judgment in the criminal case, in which the appellant was in judicial custody, and was later on acquitted. It was alleged that the appellant had committed rape on the person of a minor girl, who was studying in Class IX. He was teaching her, and had committed rape on her person, exploited her and had also taken obscene pictures, on which he was blackmailing her. The offence of rape, clearly falls within the provisions of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which could only be tried by the District & Sessions Judge, and in any case, we find that the judgment of acquittal was written, only on the ground that the witnesses have turned hostile. The Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bundi did not even refer to the medical examination and the statement of doctor, and considered the provisions of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 7. Be that as it may, the petitioner may have been in judicial custody, but he had the knowledge of the date of verification of the documents. He did not make any representation, or application, for giving him another date. We further do not find any error of law in the judgment of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, on the ground of unexplained laches. 8. The Special Appeal has no merits. It is accordingly dismissed.