JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.06.2020, whereby the respondents have cancelled his selection on the post of Nurse Grade-II. 2. Mr. Mardia, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner, duly selected in the selection process, was not given joining and his appointment has been cancelled vide the impugned order, in wake of pendency of a criminal case against him. 3. While maintaining that the veracity of the charges against the petitioner is yet to be determined, learned counsel argued that the allegations levelled and charge-sheet under Sections 143, 283 and 353 of the IPC (unlawful assembly; obstruction of public way and extortion) are not of such grave nature, for which an incumbent can be denied appointment. He added that considering Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules of 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1965 ), which even allows a convict to be given appointment, impugned order deserves to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment dated 11.02.2019 of this Court rendered in the case of Mahendra Singh Rathore V. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SB Civil Writ Petition No.19152/2018 and submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered. The operative part of the judgment aforesaid is reproduced hereinbelow : The determination made, regarding non-applicability of the provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1989, though in letter may be correct, however, so far as the spirit of the said provisions is concerned, the same has not been taking into consideration, inasmuch as, the provisions of Rule 13 specifically provide that mere fact that a person has been convicted would not be a disqualification and in the present case the matters are pending against the petitioner and, therefore, the principles as laid down in the case of Khama Ram Vishnoi (supra) and Mukesh Kumar (supra) as upheld by the Division Bench, would have application in all force to the facts of the present case and, therefore, the order impugned dated 06.12.2018 (Annex.6) and 07.12.2019 (Annex-R/1) passed during pendency of the present writ petition cannot be sustained. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while trying to justify the order impugned, argued that the petitioner cannot be given appointment in view of pendency of criminal case against him. He was, however, not in a position to dispute the legal position emerging from the judgment rendered in case of Mahendra Singh Rathore (supra). 6. In view of the facts obtaining and considering that the incident which led to lodging of the FIR was a consequence of sudden outburst of anger consequent to a road accident and that allegations levelled against the accused including the petitioner are omnibus and trivial in nature, this Court is of the firm view that cancelling of petitioner s appointment vide order dated 09.06.2020, is illegal and contrary to the spirit of provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1965, which even permits the employer to give appointment even to a convict. 7. Following the judgment rendered in case of Mahendra Singh Rathore (supra), the writ petition succeeds. 8. Impugned communication dated 09.06.2020 (Annex.5) is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to give posting to the petitioner within a period of six weeks of placing a certified copy of the order instant. 9. Stay application is also disposed of.