JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against rejection of their candidature by the respondents referring to Circular dated 04.12.2019 (Annex.R/3) on account of coming to the conclusion that though acquitted, as the acquittal of the petitioners is not 'honourable' they are not eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-1. 2. It is inter-alia indicated in the petitions that the petitioners applied pursuant to advertisement dated 31.12.2021 for the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-1. The names of the petitioners appeared in the list of the candidates, who were later on called for document verification. The petitioners uploaded their documents, however, by impugned order their candidature has been rejected by referring to the Circular and indicating that as the trial was pending against them, or they have been convicted, they aren't entitled for appointment. The Petitions were filed inter-alia indicating rejection of petitioners' candidature was not justified, as they were acquitted by the criminal courts. 3. A response to the writ petition has been filed inter-alia indicating that the Circular dated 04.12.2019 provided that even in cases where there is an acquittal, a Committee to be formed would examine each case and on coming to the conclusion and in case where acquittal is based on giving of benefit of doubt/compromise, after examining the matter thoroughly, the decision is to be taken for according appointment. Based on which, the cases of petitioners were examined by the Committee and the Committee has come to the conclusion that the petitioners aren't entitled for appointment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions with reference to the judgments of the concerned criminal court by indicating that either they were not involved in the crime and that based on the judgment in question, it couldn't be said that despite acquittal, the petitioners were not entitled for appointment. Submissions were also made that the decision taken by the Committee is omnibus, wherein, merely on account of the fact that the petitioners were given benefit of doubt, their candidatures have been rejected, which is not justified, as they were required to look into the judgment and/or further material and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be set aside. 5. Submissions were also made that the decision taken by the Committee is omnibus, wherein, merely on account of the fact that the petitioners were given benefit of doubt, their candidatures have been rejected, which is not justified, as they were required to look into the judgment and/or further material and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be set aside. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents made submissions that under the Circular, the respondents are entitled to come to a conclusion that despite acquittal the petitioners are not entitled for appointment. The Committee has looked into the aspect and has come to a categoric conclusion, based on the nature of offence in which the petitioners have faced trial and the fact that the recruitment is for the post of Teacher Grade-III, who would be teaching the students of primary classes and therefore, on that count, the orders impugned have been passed, which do not call for any interference. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. The requisite provision dealing with the subject-matter in the Circular dated 04.12.2019 (Annex.R/3) reads as under:- nks"keqfDr ds ekeyksa esa] foHkkx esa bl laca/k esa xfBr lfefr ftlesa ,d iqfyl vf/kdkjh Hkh lnL; gksxk] vH;FkhZ d iwoZo`r (Antecedents), vkjksiksa dh xgurk ,oa nks"keqfDr dk vk/kkj] vFkkZr D;k nks"keqfDr lEekutud :i ls iznku dh xbZ gS vFkok lansg ds ykHk@le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij iznku dh xbZ gS] vkfn dk leqfpr ijh{k.k dj] vH;FkhZ dks fu;qfDr nsus ds laca/k esa fu.kZ; ysxhA 8. The Committee appointed by the respondents has in both the cases passed similar order/s, which reads as under:- [Consideration qua Petitioner- Manju Kanwar] ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vH;FkhZ dks lansg dk ykHk nsdj nks"keqDr fd;k x;k gSA izdj.k ij lfefr }kjk vkjksiksa ls lEcfU/kr leLr igyqvks dk voyksdu fd;k x;k rFkk vkjksiksa dh xEHkhjrk ij fopkj foe'kZ fd;k x;kA pwafd jkT; ds fo+|ky; ckyd&ckfydkvksa ds lEiw.kZ ,oa larqfyr O;fDrRo rFkk leqfpr pfj= fuekZ.k djus okyh dk;Z 'kkykvksa ds :i esa lekt }kjk izfr"Bk izkIr gS rFkk vfHkHkkodx.k v/;kidksa ij Hkjkslk djrs gS vkSj mEehn j[krs gS fd muds ikY; ckyd vkSj ckfydk, u dsoy ns'k ds lqugjh Hkfo"; dk fuekZ.k djsaxs cfYd pfj=oku v/;kidksa ds laj{k.k esa lqjf{kr Hkh jgsaxsA ,sls esa vH;FkhZ ij yxk;s x;s xEHkhj izd`fr ds bYtkekr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vH;FkhZ dks v/;kid ds in dh xfjek ds izfrdwy ik;k x;k] fygktk v/;kid in ds fy, vH;FkhZ dh nkosnkjh dks loZlEefr ls [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA [Consideration qua Petitioner- Govind Singh Chundawat] ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vH;FkhZ dks nks"keqDr fd;k x;k gSA izdj.k ij lfefr }kjk vkjksiksa ls lEcfU/kr leLr igyqvks dk voyksdu fd;k x;k rFkk vkjksiksa dh xEHkhjrk ij fopkj foe'kZ fd;k x;kA pwafd jkT; ds fo+|ky; ckyd&ckfydkvksa ds lEiw.kZ ,oa larqfyr O;fDrRo rFkk leqfpr pfj= fuekZ.k djus okyh dk;Z 'kkykvksa ds :i esa lekt }kjk izfr"Bk izkIr gS rFkk vfHkHkkodx.k v/;kidksa ij Hkjkslk djrs gS vkSj mEehn j[krs gS fd muds ikY; ckyd vkSj ckfydk, u dsoy ns'k ds lqugjh Hkfo"; dk fuekZ.k djsaxs cfYd pfj=oku v/;kidksa ds laj{k.k esa lqjf{kr Hkh jgsaxsA ,sls esa vH;FkhZ ij yxk;s x;s xEHkhj izd`fr ds bYtkekr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vH;FkhZ dks v/;kid ds in dh xfjek ds izfrdwy ik;k x;k] fygktk v/;kid in ds fy, vH;FkhZ dh nkosnkjh dks loZlEefr ls [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA 9. A perusal of the above would reveal that though the respondents have provided for cases to be examined by the Committee and the Committee purports to have examined the cases; the Committee apparently has based on the fact that the allegations against the petitioners pertain to serious/heinous offence(s) and they were given benefit of doubt, after indicating the philosophy for not permitting such candidates, has passed the order. However, the order does not indicate as to whether they have looked at the facts of the case, inasmuch as in the case of Govind Singh Chundawat (Petitioner in CWP No. 5766/2022), there was no specific allegation against the petitioner pertaining to the offence alleged against him and ultimately all the accused have been acquitted by the Children Court. Further, the respondents have ignored sub-Clause (4) of the same Circular, providing that the cases where the candidates have been found guilty and under the Act of 2005 and they have been given benefit of Section 24(i) of the Act, would be eligible. Once the Circular itself provides that even in the case of conviction, wherein benefit of Section 24 of the Act has been extended, the candidate would be eligible, the fact that petitioner-Govind Singh Chundawat was acquitted, under no circumstances, he could be held ineligible by the respondents. 10. However, apparently as already indicated herein before, the respondents have in an omnibus manner by referring to the allegations, sections involved, have passed the orders cancelling the candidature of the petitioners/rejecting their case. The said approach of the Committee cannot be sustained. 11. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed. The orders impugned passed by the respondents cancelling the candidature of the petitioners are quashed and set aside. The matters are remanded back to the Committee constituted under the Circular dated 04.12.2019. It would be required of the Committee to deliberate on the issue based on the Circular thoroughly and pass appropriate speaking order with regard to eligibility of the candidatures on account of their acquittal in the criminal cases, keeping in view the observations made herein before. Needful may be done by the Committee within a period of two weeks. It is made clear that based on the decision taken by the Committee, the petitioners, if found entitled for appointment, they would be entitled to all consequential benefits.