JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - These special appeals (writ) involve common question of law and were clubbed together. However, as the same are directed against different orders passed by learned Single Bench and involve distinct factual issues, the same are being decided separately. 2. All the three appeals involve the issue "Whether or not candidates, having criminal antecedents, can be permitted to join Government service upon their selection on merit'. The State Government has issued circulars dated 15.07.2016 and 04.12.2019 laying down the guidelines for entry into service of such candidates. Relevant clauses which are common to both circulars are reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference: "Character. The character of a candidate for direct recruitment to the service must be such as to qualify him for employment in the service. He must produce a certificate of good character from the principal/Academic Officer of the University or College in which he was last educated and two such certificates written not more than six months prior to the dale of application from two responsible persons not connected with the College or University and not related to him. (1) A conviction by a court of law need not of itself involve the refusal of a certificate of good character. The circumstances of the conviction should be taken into account and if they involve no moral turpitude or association with crimes of violence or with a movement which has as its object the overthrow by violent means of the government as established by law, the mere conviction need not be regarded as a dis-qualification. (2) Ex-prisoners, who by their disciplined life while in prison and by their subsequent good conduct have proved to be completely reformed, should not be discriminated against on grounds of their previous conviction for the purpose of employment in the service. Those, who are convicted of offences not involving moral turpitude or violence, shall be deemed to have been completely reformed on the production of a report to that effect from the Superintendent, After Care Home or if there are no such Homes in a particular district, from the superintendent of police of that district. Those, who are convicted of offences not involving moral turpitude or violence, shall be deemed to have been completely reformed on the production of a report to that effect from the Superintendent, After Care Home or if there are no such Homes in a particular district, from the superintendent of police of that district. (3) Those convicted of offences involving moral turpitude or violence shall be required to produce a certificate from the superintendent, After Care Home, or if there is no such home in a particular district, from the superintendent of police of that district, endorsed by the Inspector General of prisons, to the effect that they are suitable for employment as they have proved to be completely reformed by their disciplined life while in prison and by their subsequent good conduct in an After Care Home. ...... ..... 1- ,sls izdj.k@fLFkfr;ka ftuesa fu;qfDr gsrq vik=rk ekuh tkuh pkfg, %& ;fn fdlh Hkh vH;FkhZ ds fo:) fuEu esa ls fdlh Hkh izdkj ds vijk/k ds rgr izdj.k vUoh{kk/khu (under trial) gS vFkok nks"kflf) mijkar ltk gks pqdh gS] rks mls jkT; ds v/khu lsokvksa@inksa ij fu;qfDr gsrq ik= ugha ekuk tkuk pkfg, %& (i) uSfrd v/kerk ;Fkk Ny] dwVjpuk] eRrrk] cykR~laxr] fdlh efgyk dh yTtk Hkax djus ds vijk/k esa vUroZfyrrk (involvement) gksA (ii) ... (iii) ... (iv) ... (v) Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds v/;k; 16 ,oa 17 esa ;Fkkof.kZr vijk/kksa esa varoZfyrrk gksA^^ 3. Now, we proceed to adjudicate the individual writ appeals. (1) D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 543/2021 - (State & Ors. v. Gajendra Narayan Patidar) Special Appeal (Writ) No.543/2021 has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan for assailing the Judgment/Final Order dated 23.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court whereby, the Writ Petition No.17646/2018 preferred by the respondent Shri Gajendra Narayan Patidar (writ petitioner) was allowed and the appellants were directed to allow the writ petitioner to join on the post of Lab Assistant pursuant to his selection on merit in the recruitment process carried out in furtherance of the Notification dated 07.02.2018. 4. The writ petitioner stood in merit and was selected on the post of Lab Assistant. 4. The writ petitioner stood in merit and was selected on the post of Lab Assistant. However, upon Character Verification, it came to light that he was involved in a criminal case pertaining to offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC for which, an FIR No.65/2009 was registered at the Police Station Dhanmandi, Udaipur and a charge-sheet had been filed against the writ petitioner and few others in the competent court for the above offences. 5. A perusal of the charge-sheet placed on record of the writ petition indicates that the allegations against the charge-sheeted accused including the petitioner were of conspiring to prepare and provide fabricated marksheets to certain aspirants so as to facilitate their selection as ANMs. These aspirants purportedly procured Government Jobs on the basis of the fabricated marksheets. 6. When the petitioner was not allowed to join duty despite his selection vide order dated 07.02.2018, he filed a writ petition No.2663/2018 which came to be decided by the learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.04.2018 directing the respondents to get the candidature of the writ petitioner considered by the Screening Committee and to decide the issue by a speaking order. In pursuance of the said judgment of the learned Single Bench, an order dated 12.10.2018 came to be passed whereby, the representation of the petitioner was rejected and he was denied opportunity to join service. Being aggrieved of the said order dated 12.10.2018, the writ petitioner respondent Gajendra Narayan Patidar filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17646/2018 which has been allowed by the learned Single Bench vide Judgment/ Final Order dated 23.01.2020 which is assailed in this intra court writ appeal. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material on record. 8. It cannot be disputed that the offences for which, the respondent writ petitioner was charge-sheeted are those involving moral turpitude i.e. Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC and fall under Chapters XVII, XVIII and VA of the IPC. 8. It cannot be disputed that the offences for which, the respondent writ petitioner was charge-sheeted are those involving moral turpitude i.e. Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC and fall under Chapters XVII, XVIII and VA of the IPC. The two circulars dated 15.07.2016 and 04.12.2019 issued by the Department of Personnel, State of Rajasthan clearly stipulate that an aspiring candidate for Government Job against whom, an FIR is registered for offences covered by Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code and the offences involving moral turpitude, shall not be entitled to be appointed in Government Service. 9. Heavy reliance was placed by the learned counsel representing the respondent writ petitioner on the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2016)8 SCC 471 . Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while answering the reference in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), laid down following guidelines governing the principles of entering into Government Service of candidates with criminal antecedents: "30. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus: (1) Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. (2) While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. (3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. (2) While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. (3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. (4) In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted : - (a) In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. (b) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. (c) If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. (5) In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. (6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. (7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. (7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. (8) If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. (9) In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. (10) For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. (11) Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him." (Emphasis supplied) 10. As per Point No.3, Government orders/instructions/ rules applicable to the employee would have to be taken into consideration at the time of taking the decision. It has been observed at Point No.4(C) that in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, even if acquittal had been recorded on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. At Point No.5, it has been observed that in case where the employee has made a declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has right to consider the antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. 11. At Point No.5, it has been observed that in case where the employee has made a declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has right to consider the antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. 11. Since the charges against the respondent writ petitioner in the pending criminal case pertain to offences of moral turpitude covered under Chapters XVII, XVIII and VA of the IPC, the circular/instructions dated 15.07.2016 and 04.12.2019 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan clearly operate against him and hence, he cannot be employed in Government Service on this ground alone. The Judgment in the case of Mahendra Singh Rathore v. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19152/2018), decided on 11.02.2019 on which, reliance was placed by learned Single Bench while allowing the writ petition of the respondent writ petitioner, has been assailed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1377/2019. 12. Learned counsel representing the respondent writ petitioner placed reliance on the Division Bench Judgment in the case of Akashdeep Morya v. Rajasthan High Court & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12290/2017), decided on 21.03.2018 wherein, the candidate was granted the relief sought for despite pendency of four criminal cases. A perusal of the said Judgment indicates that three criminal cases, which were registered against the writ petitioner, pertained to the trivial offences under the Indian Penal Code. One case was registered when the writ petitioner was a minor. Only one case involved the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC wherein also, the police had given a negative Final Report which was accepted by the Court concerned. 13. Apparently thus, the factual matrix involved in the case of Akashdeep Morya (supra) is totally distinguishable from the case at hand and hence, the ratio of the said judgment does not help the cause of the respondent writ petitioner. In the case of State v. Mahendra Singh Meena (supra), the writ appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the learned Division Bench and the direction given by the learned Single Bench to offer appointment to the writ petitioner despite pendency of the criminal case was affirmed. In the said judgment, the Division Bench pertinently observed that the offences attributed to the candidate did not involve allegations of moral turpitude. Thus, the said judgment is also of no avail to the respondent writ petitioner Gajendra Narayan Patidar. In the said judgment, the Division Bench pertinently observed that the offences attributed to the candidate did not involve allegations of moral turpitude. Thus, the said judgment is also of no avail to the respondent writ petitioner Gajendra Narayan Patidar. 14. As a consequence of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 23.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Bench does not stand to scrutiny and hence cannot be sustained. Thus, the same is reversed. 15. The special appeal is allowed accordingly. Stay application is disposed of. (2) D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 455/2021 (State & Ors. v. Babulal Moond) The respondent writ petitioner herein, applied for selection on the post of Lab Assistant pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 09.05.2018. He cleared the written examination and after completion of the requisite formalities, he was offered provisional appointment vide order dated 08.08.2020. At the time of joining the duty, the respondent writ petitioner submitted a Character Certificate issued by the Superintendent of Police whereupon, it came to light that a criminal case was pending against him for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 336 and 353 IPC and Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act. Despite that, the respondent was allowed to join duty. The disciplinary authority, being the Principal, Government Sr. Secondary School, Napasar, District Bikaner, was apprised about the pendency of the criminal case involving the above mentioned offences whereupon, he sought instructions from the District Education Officer, Bikaner who issued a communication declaring the respondent herein to be ineligible for appointment on the ground of facing a criminal case involving offences covered under Chapter XVI of the IPC. Thereupon, the respondent writ petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7892/2020 which was allowed by order dated 06.04.2021 assailed by the appellant State in this writ appeal. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri Pankaj Sharma, learned AAG representing the appellate State and the counsel representing the respondent writ petitioner and, have gone through the impugned order. 16. Learned Single Bench allowed the writ petition of the respondent on the basis of ratio of another Single Bench Judgment in the case of Mahendra Singh Rathore v. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19152/2018), decided on 11.02.2019. 17. 16. Learned Single Bench allowed the writ petition of the respondent on the basis of ratio of another Single Bench Judgment in the case of Mahendra Singh Rathore v. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19152/2018), decided on 11.02.2019. 17. A perusal of the circulars dated 15.07.2016 and 04.12.2019 issued by the Department of Personnel, State of Rajasthan clearly indicates that there is a prohibition against appointment in service of a candidate against whom, offences covered under Chapters XVI and XVII of the IPC are pending. Even in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2016)8 SCC 471 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that while taking decision to offer appointment to an incumbent, the employer shall take into consideration the applicable Government orders/ instructions/rules, etc. It cannot be denied that as per the circulars dated 15.07.2016 and 04.12.2019 issued by the Department of Personnel, State of Rajasthan, an incumbent against whom a case involving offences punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII of the IPC is pending, is not entitled to be appointed in Government service. As a consequence, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 06.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench cannot be sustained and hence, the same is reversed. 18. The special appeal is allowed accordingly. (3) D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 506/2021 (State & Ors. v. Mohan Lal) The State of Rajasthan has assailed the order dated 13.01.2021 whereby, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9600/2020 preferred by the respondent writ petitioner Mohan Lal was accepted and the appellants were directed to offer appointment to the respondent writ petitioner pursuant to his selection on the post of Sr. Teacher (Subject English) vide appointment order dated 28.08.2020. The respondent was not allowed to join duty despite his selection whereupon, he preferred the above writ petition which came to be accepted by relying on the ratio of the Single Bench Judgment in the case of Mahendra Singh Rathore v. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19152/2018), decided on 11.02.2019. 19. At the outset, it may be noted that the ratio of Single Bench Judgment in the case of Mahendra Singh Rathore (supra) has been assailed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1377/2019. 20. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19152/2018), decided on 11.02.2019. 19. At the outset, it may be noted that the ratio of Single Bench Judgment in the case of Mahendra Singh Rathore (supra) has been assailed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1377/2019. 20. The respondent had been denied joining on the ground of pendency of criminal case arising out of FIR No.387/2012 registered at Police Station Anupgarh. Charge-sheet of the criminal case has been annexed with the writ petition a perusal whereof reveals that the respondent Mohan Pal, his father Ratanlal son of Vajir Chand, brother Mahendra Pal, mother Vimla Devi and one Ashok Kumar were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The conclusions drawn in the charge-sheet indicate that Kailash, daughter of accused Ratan Lal and sister of the respondent herein was married to the complainant Ratan Lal son of Jagdish Oad. Matrimonial discord developed between the spouses whereupon, an FIR No.35/2012 came to be filed against Ratan Lal son of Jagdish Oad. 21. It further came to light that at the time of marriage of Kailash, her father (Ratanlal son of Vajir Chand) had gifted a car to his son-in-law (Ratan Lal son of Jagdish Oad). After lodging of the FIR No.35/2012, the girl demanded the car back from her husband and accordingly, he (Ratan Lal son of Jagdish Oad) returned the car as well as signed Transfer Forms Nos.29 and 30 (under the Motor Vehicles Act). 22. Thereafter, Ratanlal son of Vajir Chand, got the car transferred on the basis of the documents provided by his son-in- law Ratan Lal son of Jagdish Oad. 23. However, after filing of charge-sheet in FIR No.35/2012, Ratan Lal son of Jagdish Oad lodged the FIR No.387/2012 alleging that his father-in-law Ratanlal son of Vajir Chand and his family members (including the writ petitioner) got the car transferred by fabricating his signatures. The police initially gave a negative Final Report. Shri Ratan Lal son of Jagdish Oad submitted a protest petition on which, further investigation was ordered. The investigating officer collected the admitted and specimen signatures of Ratanlal son of Vajir Chand and got the same compared with the signatures on the forms used to transfer ownership of the disputed car. The police initially gave a negative Final Report. Shri Ratan Lal son of Jagdish Oad submitted a protest petition on which, further investigation was ordered. The investigating officer collected the admitted and specimen signatures of Ratanlal son of Vajir Chand and got the same compared with the signatures on the forms used to transfer ownership of the disputed car. Handwriting expert's report was received with a conclusion that the signatures on the forms did not match with the specimen signatures of the complainant Ratan Lal son of Jagdish Oad on which, a charge-sheet came to be filed as above against Shri Ratanlal and his family members including the writ petitioner Shri Mohan Lal for the ofences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. It is not in dispute that the respondent disclosed the factum of pendency of this criminal case while submitting the application for recruitment. 24. Though it would be premature to make any observation on the merits of the criminal case (supra) but, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is required to consider the entirety of facts and circumstances prevailing therein and hence, the allegations of the charge-sheet were carefully scrutinized and it comes out that there was no involvement whatsoever of the writ petitioner in the entire transaction whereby, the car in question was got transferred. The investigating officer, at one point of time, submitted a negative Final Report. Even after the investigation was reopened, only the specimen and admitted signatures of Ratanlal son of Vajir Chand were got compared with the disputed signatures and hence, the involvement of the respondent writ petitioner in the said case is based purely on conjectures and surmises. The two circulars dated 15.07.2016 and 04.12.2019 issued by the Department of Personnel, State of Rajasthan on which, the counsel representing the State placed reliance, do not debar the appointment of an incumbent on Government post on the ground of pendency of criminal case. Even in the Judgment of Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2016)8 SCC 471 . In Avtar Singh's case, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, at Points Nos.4(C) and 5 has observed that despite pendency of the criminal case, the employer can consider the antecedents and may take appropriate decision regarding continuance of the employee. 25. Even in the Judgment of Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2016)8 SCC 471 . In Avtar Singh's case, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, at Points Nos.4(C) and 5 has observed that despite pendency of the criminal case, the employer can consider the antecedents and may take appropriate decision regarding continuance of the employee. 25. As has been discussed above, the charge-sheet of the criminal case wherein, the respondent writ petitioner has been arraigned as an accused does not prima facie justify his involvement. It appears that he has been charge-sheeted in the case simply because he is brother of Smt. Kailash who had filed the FIR No.35/2012 against her husband Ratan Lal son of Jagdish Oad (Complainant in FIR No.387/2012). 26. The learned Single Bench also considered the allegations levelled in the FIR and came to a conclusion that there was nothing in these allegations which could disentitle the writ petitioner for entering into Government Service and rightly so in our opinion. 27. Having discussed in detail the allegations as set out in the FIR and the charge-sheet (supra), we are in conformity with the view taken by the learned Single Bench that the respondent cannot be denied entry into Government Service on the basis of his totally unjustified involvement in the criminal case (supra). 28. The impugned Judgment dated 13.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench does not warrant interference and as a consequence, this appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. 29. A copy of this order be placed in each file.