Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2006 (RAJ)

State Of Rajasthan v. Ms. Sajjana

2022-07-12

KULDEEP MATHUR, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2022
ORDER 1. The instant intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 09.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench, whereby the writ petition of the respondent M.S. Sajjana was accepted and the respondents (appellants herein) were directed to give her appointment on the post of Constable in the recruitment process initiated vide recruitment notification dated 04.12.2019. 2. The respondent-petitioner applied for the post of Constable in pursuance of the advertisement dated 04.12.2019. Her name appeared in the list of successful candidates. During the course of character verification, it came to light that an FIR had been registered against her. She did not disclose the factum of registration of FIR in the application form and rather indicated that no FIR had every been registered against her and thus, treating it to be a case of false information, the order dated 09.08.2021 was issued holding the respondent writ petition to be ineligible for appointment. The said order was challenged by the respondent by filing the writ petition, which has been allowed vide order dated 09.12.2021. Being aggrieved thereof, the instant intra court appeal has been preferred, which is delayed by 173 days. 3. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed to condone the delay. The grounds, which have been set out in the application for condonation of delay, are totally unconvincing. Para Nos.2 and 3 of the condonation application are quoted hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference. '2. That after obtaining of the legal opinion the matter was forwarded to the Secretary and thereafter the matter was placed before the Pre Litigation Committee. Thereafter it was decided to prefer the appeal in the order and the matter was forwarded to the Law Department for sanction of Special Appeal, which accordingly was granted. 3. The delay in filing the special appeal is unintentional and bona fide and an important question of law is involved in the case which has a far reaching effect and therefore in interest of justice, this application of condonation of delay may be allowed.' 4. Despite that, we have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Manish Vyas, learned AAG, on merits of the case. 5. Mr. Despite that, we have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Manish Vyas, learned AAG, on merits of the case. 5. Mr. Manish Vyas, learned AAG, submits that it is an admitted position as evident from record that the respondent was arraigned as an accused in FIR No.228/2020 registered at the Police Station Taranagar, District Churu for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 354, 427, 379 and 143 IPC. She concealed this fact in the application form and thus, it being a case of non-disclosure of fact of registration of a criminal case, the respondent's candidature was rightly rejected. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment. We have also given careful consideration to the grounds set out in the application for condonation of delay, which have been reproduced supra. 7. On the face of the record, the grounds averred in the application are totally frivolous. Law is well-settled that in an application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, each day's delay has to be explained. In the present case, the application is miserably short of any kind of particulars and not even a single date has been set out therein, what to talk of offering explanation for each day's delay. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself. Inspite thereof, we have examined merits of the matter. 8. It is not in dispute that FIR No.228/2020, which came to be registered at the Police Station Taranagar, District Churu was for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 354, 427, 379 and 143 IPC was in relation to an inter-family dispute. It is also admitted that the investigating agency, thoroughly investigated the matter and submitted a negative final report on 22.10.2020 and the same was accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Taranagar by order dated 31.10.2020. Since the FIR did not result into any adverse action being taken against the respondent writ petitioner and as a negative final report was proposed and submitted in the court, in the ordinary course of events, there was no occasion for the respondent to have got information regarding registration of such FIR against her. If at all, the employer was having any information to the contrary, it should have been brought on record. If at all, the employer was having any information to the contrary, it should have been brought on record. However, no such material was placed on record. Hence, we are of the firm view that the plea taken by the respondent that she was not aware of the registration of the above FIR is substantiated from the factual scenario narrated above. The FIR having resulted into a negative final report within a short duration of two months from the registration thereof, there was no occasion for the persons arraigned in the FIR to have been notified regarding the registration thereof. Hence, it is not a case, wherein the respondent made any false declaration/concealment while submitting application form for recruitment. 9. Consequently, we find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 09.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench warranting interference therein. The intra court appeal, thus, fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit.