JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. There is delay of 136 days in filing the present appeal. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed which, for the reasons mentioned therein, is allowed. Delay in filing this appeal is thus condoned. 2. This special appeal has been preferred by the State/appellants claiming the following relief: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this special appeal may kindly be allowed and the record of the case may kindly be called for and examined and the impugned orders passed by learned Single Judge dated 22.04.2019, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner may kindly be dismissed." 3. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Rakesh Singh (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1421/2019, decided on 10.01.2020), which reads as under:- "The present controversy arises out of the recruitment process for the post of Constable (General), Non-TSP area in pursuance of the advertisement dated 25.05.2018. The petitioner (respondent herein) secured merit position in the final merit-list but was not accorded appointment on the ground that a criminal case was registered against him and the information for the same had not been furnished by him in the initial application form. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Manish Vyas submits as per Annex. 5 of the writ petition, which is application form, there was a condition that the candidate was required to answer a question "whether any FIR has ever been lodged against him", to which the respondent-petitioner had stated "No", which is gross violation and amounts to suppression of fact and as such he cannot be permitted to be appointed in the disciplined force of Police Department. The Additional Advocate General, Mr. Vyas has also vehemently submitted that acquittal was due to giving him benefit of doubt and was not absolute acquittal and thus also rejection of the candidature of the respondent despite coming in merit was justified. Mr. The Additional Advocate General, Mr. Vyas has also vehemently submitted that acquittal was due to giving him benefit of doubt and was not absolute acquittal and thus also rejection of the candidature of the respondent despite coming in merit was justified. Mr. G.R. Bhari, learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is an admitted position that the circular dated 28.03.2017 issued by the appellants clearly states that a person who has mentioned the details of the criminal case either in the application form or in the verification form, shall be entitled to be given appointment even when he has been acquitted on the ground of proposition of benefit of doubt. Relevant portion of the circular reads as follows: ^^dk;kZy; egkfuns'kd iqfyl jktLFkku] t;iqj Øekad% uaŒ&5¼01½ iqŒQksŒ@dkfuŒHkrhZ@vkŒÁŒ ikfylh@2017@1300 fnukad% 28-03-2017 ifji= fo"k;% vkijkf/kd Ádj.kksa esa fyIr@vkijkf/kd Ádj.kksa ds rF; Nqikus ds dkj.k fu;qfDr ls oafpr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds lEcU/k esaA --------------------- --------------------- fuEukafdr Js.kh ds dsoy mu vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fu;qDr ;ksX; ik;k x;k gS] ftUgksaus vkosnu i= vFkok pfj= lR;kiu QkeZ ¼nksuksa esa vFkok fdlh ,d esa½ vkijkf/kd Ádj.k dk mYys[k fd;k gks %& 1- vkijkf/kd Ádj.k ds vUos"k.k esa nks"kh ugha ik;k x;k] ,QŒvkjŒ Lohd`r dh xbZA 2- U;k;ky; }kjk nks"keqDr ¼lansg dk ykHk] lk{; ds vHkko lfgr½A 3- jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij nks"keqDr@cjhA 4- dfri; /kkjkvksa esa nks"kflf) ij ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12 dk ykHk ¼nks"kflf) fdlh fugZjrk ls xzLr ugha@jktdh; lsok@Hkkoh thou ij fdlh Ádkj dk foijhr ÁHkko ugha½A 5- nks"kh djkj fn;k tkdj fd'kksj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 15¼1½¼,½ dk ykHk ÁkIrA** Mr. Bhari, learned counsel for the respondent further submits that since the circular dated 28.03.2017 is a comprehensive policy document issued by the appellants, they themselves are bound by the same and the respondent had clearly mentioned about the criminal case in verification form and thus he was entitled for appointment as per his merit in accordance with law. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court notes that the circular dated 28.03.2017 required the respondent to mention details of the case either at the time of filing of the application form or in the verification form and upon perusal of the verification form, this Court finds that details of the case has been given by the respondent-petitioner in question. The circular clearly stipulates giving of appointment to such candidates who have been acquitted on account of benefit of doubt. The circular clearly stipulates giving of appointment to such candidates who have been acquitted on account of benefit of doubt. This Court further notes that the acquittal happened on 24th January 2018, whereas the verification form was filled on 6th June, 2018. These facts are not disputed by the learned AAG. In light of the aforesaid observations, no interference is called for in the impugned order. The Appeal is dismissed." 4. Further, a Division Bench 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), observed 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. 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. 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." 5. In light of the judgments referred hereinabove, the present appeal is dismissed in the same terms. All pending applications also stand dismissed.