Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 179 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Gopal Sadh

2020-01-21

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANGEET LODHA

body2020
JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. There is delay of 185 days in filing the present appeal. However, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed which, for the reasons mentioned therein, is allowed. Delay in filing the present appeal is thus condoned. 2. This special appeal has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "(1) It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the present special appeal may kindly be allowed and the order dated 09.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge may be quashed and set aside and the writ petition may kindly be dismissed with cost. (2) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper may also be passed in favour of the appellants." 3. The present controversy arose out of an advertisement dated 25.05.2018, whereby recruitment process for appointment on the post of Constable General, Constable Driver and Constable Band was held by the Rajasthan Police for Bikaner District. 4. In the said recruitment process, the writ petitioner, on being found eligible, was declared as a successful candidate vide Press Note dated 15.09.2018. Thereafter, a list of selected candidates was published on 27.11.2018. However, the writ petitioner was not given appointment, even when his name figured at Serial No. 19 in the said select list, which is reflected in Annexure-3 of the writ petition. The reason given for such non-consideration was that an order dated 28.01.2017 was passed by the learned ACJM No. 2, Bikaner in Criminal Case No. 255/2011, whereby, for lack of evidence, the writ petitioner was acquitted of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State/appellants, however, is not in a position to refute that the present controversy is covered by the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in Lokesh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18212/2018 decided on 20.02.2019), while relying upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 . Further, the Division Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18212/2018 decided on 20.02.2019), while relying upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 . Further, the Division Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Love Kush Meena (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 373/2019 decided on 16.07.2019), which was rendered, while referring to the judgment delivered in Bhuta Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 442/16 decided on 08.08.2016), is governing the field. In Bhuta Ram (supra) also, reliance has been placed upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra). The relevant portion of the judgment in Love Kush Meena (supra) reads as under: "4. The learned Single Judge while relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.: SLP(C) No. 20525/11, decided on 21.7.16, a Bench decision of this court in Bhuta Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Civil Special appeal (Writ) No. 442/16, decided on 8.8.16 and a decision of this court in the respondent's own case in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 2391/16, decided on 11.11.16, held that the respondent is entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of Constable, notwithstanding his involvement in the criminal case wherein he was acquitted. Hence, this appeal. 7. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. It is true that the respondent was prosecuted by the criminal court of competent jurisdiction for offences under Sections 341, 323, 302/34 IPC. A perusal of the judgment reveals that though the trial court has recorded the finding that the charges inter alia against the respondent has not been proved beyond doubt but as a matter of fact, it was a case wherein no cogent evidence was connecting the accused persons to the commission of offence. A perusal of the judgment reveals that though the trial court has recorded the finding that the charges inter alia against the respondent has not been proved beyond doubt but as a matter of fact, it was a case wherein no cogent evidence was connecting the accused persons to the commission of offence. Moreover, the issue with regard to the respondent's entitlement for consideration for appointment to the post of Constable notwithstanding his involvement in the criminal case and the order of acquittal passed by the trial court as aforesaid, giving him benefit of doubt, had already been decided by the learned Single Judge of this court vide judgment dated 11.11.16 rendered in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 2391/16, which has attained finality. In this view of the matter, the action of the appellants in denying the appointment to the respondent on the self same ground was not justified. The order earlier passed by the appellants denying the appointment to the respondent was quashed by the learned Single Judge observing that the relevant facts as to the antecedents as well as the facts indicated in the judgment were apparently not taken into consideration. 9. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has decided the petition in light of a Bench decision of this court rendered in Bhuta Ram's case (supra), which was decided while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (supra). Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not feel persuaded to take a different view in the matter and thus, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference by us in exercise of intra court appeal jurisdiction." The aforequoted portion of the judgment rendered in Love Kush Meena (supra) makes it clear that the controversy involved in that case is similar to the one involved herein, and rather the offence charged in that matter was under Sections 341, 323, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code; in the said case, the trial court has recorded a finding of acquittal, due to the charge not having been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the judgment rendered in Love Kush Meena (supra) is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The verdicts in Lokesh Meena (supra) and Love Kush Meena (supra) have attained finality. 6. Thus, the judgment rendered in Love Kush Meena (supra) is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The verdicts in Lokesh Meena (supra) and Love Kush Meena (supra) have attained finality. 6. Since the present controversy involved herein is identical to the one involved in Love Kush Meena (supra) and the judgment rendered therein, as mentioned above, had attained finality, therefore, no case for interference in the present appeal is made out. 7. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed.