ORDER : 1. Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate has submitted explanation of Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Home Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur, in the form of additional affidavit, in compliance of order dated 7th of November, 2017. 2. By order dated 7th of November 2017, Court has expressed its anguish for the phraseology employed in impugned order (Annex.1) dated 13th of July 2017, passed by the State Level Parole Committee (for short, ‘Committee’), declining permanent parole to convict prisoner Lala S/o Mohan @ Chandriya. The Committee, in the impugned order, while considering the case of convict prisoner Lala, has castigated the entire “Kalbeliya” community and branded it community of ‘Jarayam Pesha’, i.e., the community earning its livelihood by committing crimes. 3. In the explanation, the Deputy Secretary has mentioned with clarity and precision that aforesaid phrase was used bona fide and unintentional. The concerned officer has also tendered unconditional apology for these remarks in his explanation. 4. A responsible officer of a welfare State is not expected to demean any community in general with such disparaging remarks. Such unwarranted comments cannot be countenanced from a responsible civil servant. Be that as it may, as the officer concerned has shown his remorse, I reluctantly accept his apology so as to pardon him for such uncharitable comments. Needless to emphasis here that it is not expected of the officer to repeat such errors in future while dealing with cases of parole. 5. Now switching on the grievances of petitioner-wife of the convict prisoner Lala ventilated through present writ petition wherein she has craved for quashing of the impugned order (Annex.1) and releasing him on permanent parole, suffice it to observe that impugned order is not based on objective considerations. A bare perusal of the impugned order and the explanation tendered by the officer concerned makes it abundantly clear that the order has been passed with preconceived notions in an absolutely casual and cavalier manner sans the facts and circumstances, which are relevant and germane to the matter. 6. Grant of parole is essentially a mode of reforming a convict prisoner. The aims and objects of parole is to instill good behaviour, to keep the family link alive and to ensure that convicted prisoner is brought peacefully back into the society at large. 6. Grant of parole is essentially a mode of reforming a convict prisoner. The aims and objects of parole is to instill good behaviour, to keep the family link alive and to ensure that convicted prisoner is brought peacefully back into the society at large. The concept of parole pre-supposes that a convict prisoner be treated as a diseased person who needs reformation and not thrashing/inordinate incarceration so as to make him a hardened criminal. 7. In the instant matter, the convict prisoner was sentenced for ten years’ rigorous imprisonment for his serious criminal delinquency of mental depravity, but then, by this time, he has served substantial period of sentence, i.e., more than eight years including Jail and State remissions so as to reap the fruits of permanent parole in terms of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short, ‘Rules of 1958’). Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 envisages for permanent release of convict prisoner on parole on such conditions as deemed fit by the Jail Superintendent and the District Magistrate concerned. The relevant consideration for grant of regular parole is good conduct of the convict in jail besides his eligibility for grant of parole. Likewise, for permanent release on parole of a convict prisoner conditions akin to grant of regular parole are to be pressed into service mutatis mutandis by the Committee. 8. Upon examining the impugned order, unhesitatingly, I am satisfied that same is based on wholly non-est and jejune grounds. The Committee, while rejecting the prayer of convict prisoner for his permanent release on parole, has taken into account certain facts and circumstances which were wholly irrelevant and extraneous and ignoring the facts and circumstances, which were relevant and germane to the matter. Therefore, I feel persuaded to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Consequently, impugned order (Annex.1) dated 13th of July, 2017 is quashed and set aside qua the convict prisoner Lala and the matter is remanded back to the Committee for deciding his prayer for permanent parole afresh strictly in accordance with law. The “Committee” is expected to consider case of the convict prisoner Lala de-novo within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.