Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 19 (RAJ)

Arpit Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan

2019-01-02

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to accord appointment to him pursuant to his selection on the post of Teacher (Gr. III) (Level-II) in subject English. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.7.2018, the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher (Gr. III) (Level-II) in subject English. In select list dated 3.9.2018 (Annex.3), the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 64 as merit 456 and he was allotted District Pratapgarh. After the verification of documents vide Annex.6, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected indicating pendency of the case before the Court. 3. It is indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Banswara by its judgment dated 5.4.2010. The petitioner referred S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence) Application No. 494/2010, wherein, by order dated 12.4.2010, sentence of the petitioner was ordered to be suspended. 4. It is then indicated that after rejection of petitioners candidature vide Annex.6, petitioner filed another application in the pending criminal appeal, wherein, by order dated 5.10.2018 (Annex.7), this Court noticing the fact that on account of conviction of the petitioner, he has not been accorded appointment, ordered for suspension of the conviction of the petitioner. 5. It is submitted that pursuant thereto, the petitioner approached the respondents for according appointment to him, however, the respondents have not passed any order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that once the conviction of the petitioner has been suspended by this Court noticing the fact of his appointment by order dated 5.10.2018 (Annex.7), there is no reason for the respondents in now not according appointment to the petitioner pursuant to his selection, which of course would be subject to the final outcome of the appeal pending before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as he stands convicted by the Court in a criminal case and at the point of time when candidature of the petitioner was rejected, there was no order of suspension of conviction and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. So far as the rejection of the petitioners candidature (Annex.6) is concerned, it is true that on the date when the documents of the petitioner were scrutinized, only his sentence was suspended and, therefore, on account of his conviction, the respondents were justified in rejecting his candidature. 10. However, once this Court noticing the above fact, by order dated 5.10.2018 has suspended the conviction of the petitioner during pendency of the criminal appeal and the said aspect has been brought to the notice of the respondents, it was incumbent on the respondents to pass appropriate order on the said representation made by the petitioner taking into account order passed by this Court, wherein, all the facts are noticed. Therefore, inaction in this regard cannot be justified. 11. In view of the above fact situation, the petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to take into consideration the order dated 5.10.2018 passed by this Court, wherein, the conviction of the petitioner has been suspended and pass appropriate order on the representation made by the petitioner. 12. Needful would be done by the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date a representation alongwith a certified copy of this order is placed before the respondents. In case, the respondents accept the representation made by the petitioner, the petitioner would be entitled to consequential relief of appointment from the date persons lower in merit to the petitioner were accorded appointment with monetary benefits from the date of his appointment.