JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that the respondents be directed to grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable (General) and it is further prayed that the order dated 1.4.2017 (Annexure-8) passed by the respondents in terms of the order (Annexure-7) passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation, SBCWP No.16623/2016 decided on 8.3.2017 be set aside. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner had appeared in the written examination. The petitioner having passed the written examination, appeared in physical efficiency test. The petitioner made to the selection list but was denied appointment on the ground that he has been involved in criminal case falling within the ambit of Sections 143, 323, 336, 41, 504 and 325 IPC. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the said criminal case, the petitioner has been acquitted on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties. 4. The petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing SBCWP No.16623/2016 and the said writ petition was decided by this Court, by passing the following order:- "Instant petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein that the respondents be directed to issue an appointment letter in favour of the petitioner, after he has been acquitted from the criminal case pending against him. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14.07.2013 (Annexure-1) had applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (General). Counsel has further contended that after undertaking Three Tier Selection Process, the petitioner came in the merit list. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that after he was declared fit in the physical fitness test, he was selected and became eligible for the appointment. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the respondents, however, denied appointment to the petitioner on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him. Counsel pleads that there is no suppression of the facts on the part of the petitioner and the case registered against him in no way constitute moral turpitude. Counsel further pleads that the petitioner before issuance of appointment letter was acquitted in the criminal case. Counsel pleads that there is no suppression of the facts on the part of the petitioner and the case registered against him in no way constitute moral turpitude. Counsel further pleads that the petitioner before issuance of appointment letter was acquitted in the criminal case. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Others, reported as (2016) 8 S.C.C. 471 . Dr. A.S. Khangarot, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for the respondents, has contended that looking into the criminal case pending against the petitioner, the respondents shall pass a reasoned speaking order, after hearing the petitioner in the light of judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra). I find merit in the submission made by the learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for the respondents. Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of, by issuing following directions :- "A. That the petitioner shall appear before Superintendent of Police, Dholpur on 28.03.2017 at 10:00 A.M. B. That Superintendent of Police, Dholpur shall afford personal hearing to petitioner and shall look into F.I.R. and charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Agency. C. That after hearing all concerned, Superintendent of Police, Dholpur shall formulate his opinion, whether offence, if any, committed by the petitioner constituted moral turpitude or not ? D. That Superintendent of Police, Dholpur shall pass a reasoned speaking order within two weeks from date of appearance of the petitioner before the Court." A liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach this Court in case, his grievance is not redressed by the respondent No.3 - Superintendent of Police, Dholpur. Upon disposal of main petition, application, Inward No.9694/2017 for final disposal of writ petition, as well as, stay application filed therewith are also disposed of." 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in pursuance of the above order, respondents passed the order Annexure-8 by holding that the offences committed by the petitioner in no way constitute moral turpitude. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents in order Annexure-8 came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of concealment of pendency of the criminal case against him. 6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents in order Annexure-8 came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of concealment of pendency of the criminal case against him. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was wrongly stated by him before this Court in earlier round of litigation that there is no suppression of fact on the part of the petitioner. 7. Dr. A.S. Khangarot, learned Addl. Government Counsel has submitted that regarding concealment of pendency of the criminal case, and its effect a co-ordinate Bench relying upon Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Others, reported as (2016) 8 S.C.C. 471 , has constituted a committee consisting of Inspector General of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur as Chairman; Deputy Inspector General of Police (Security), Rajasthan, Jaipur; Superintendent of Police, Headquarter, Jaipur; and Deputy Legal Remembrancer, Headquarter, Jaipur as members. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he could not bring to the notice of this Court the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in Babu Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors, SBCWP No.2073 of 2016, decided on 13.2.2017, whereby a committee was constituted. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is disposed of, in same terms as in the case of Babu Lal Meena (supra) by directing the respondents to place of the case of the petitioner before the committee so constituted in terms of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Babu Lal Meena (supra). The committee as per directions issued in the case of Babu Lal Meena (supra) shall decide the case of the petitioner.