ORDER : 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “(A) By an appropriate writ, order and direction the office order dated 31.05.2021 (Annex.5) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (B) By an appropriate writ, order and direction the Respondents may kindly be directed to allow the Petitioner to join on the post of School Lecturer in subject History in the pursuance to the pursuance of the appointment order dated 18.03.2021 (Annex.02) with all consequential benefits.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by this Court are that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the post of School Lecturer arising out of the Advertisement dated 13.04.2018; the petitioner got selected after undergoing the complete selection process, thereafter, an appointment order was issued on 18.03.2021 whereby the name of the petitioner was reflected at S. No. 304 for the subject History and the place of posting was given at Government Senior Secondary School, Dhalop, Desuri, District Pali, the order of appointment is Annexure-2 of the writ petition. However, the petitioner was not allowed to join, upon which, he immediately made a representation to the respondents submitting that in his application form itself, he had informed that there was a pending criminal case under Sections 406, 498A and 323 of IPC against him, and thus, no concealment had been made on the part of the petitioner. The respondents stand was that the petitioner, as per the police verification report, was facing criminal case under Sections 406, 498A and 323 of IPC. 3. Dr. Nikhil Dungawat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the appointment was cancelled on 31.05.2021 on account of such pendency of the case, which was nothing but a matrimonial dispute and would have no bearing upon the moral fabric of the petitioner’s professional life. 3.1 Learned counsel refers to the Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1971’) which defines “Character” which reads as follows: “12. Character - The character of a candidate for direct recruitment to the Service, must be such as will qualify him for employment in the Service. 3.1 Learned counsel refers to the Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1971’) which defines “Character” which reads as follows: “12. Character - The character of a candidate for direct recruitment to the Service, must be such as will 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 or School in which he was last educated and two such certificates written not more than six months prior to the date of application, from two responsible persons not connected with his College or University or School and not related to him. Note: (1) A conviction by a Court of Law need not in 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 movement which has its object the overthrow by violent means of the Government as by law established, the mere conviction need not be regarded as disqualification. (2) Ex-prisoner 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 purposes of employment in the Service. Those who are convicted of offences not involving moral turpitude 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 Home in a particular district, from the Superintendent of police of that district. (3) Those convicted of offences involving moral turpitude shall be required to produce a certificate from the Superintendent, After-Care-Home, endorsed by the Inspector General of prisons, to the effect that they are suitable for employment as they have proved to have been completely reformed by their disciplined life while in prison and by their subsequent good conduct in an After-Care- Home.” 3.2 Learned counsel further submits that conviction is not a bar to good character as a person could be given a chance to reform himself. 3.3 Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner had moved an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, whereas his wife has moved an application seeking divorce, and both the matters were decided by the learned trial court whereby while the application for divorce was dismissed, the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed vide order dated 12.06.2019, which is Annexure-7 of the writ petition. 3.4 Learned counsel further submits that the administrative instruction dated 04.12.2019 cannot be applied without application of mind and in a straight jacket manner. 3.5 Learned counsel has placed on record the order dated 13.07.2022 passed this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3180/2022 whereby the misc. petition was allowed and the criminal case against the petitioner has been quashed and set aside. The order dated 13.07.2022 reads as follows: “(1) By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the accused-petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Pali in Criminal Case No. 231/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC mainly on the ground that the parties have entered into compromise and amicably settled their dispute and now no dispute remains between them. (2) The brief facts are that on the First Information Report lodged by the complainant-respondent No. 2, after investigation charge-sheet for the aforesaid offences was filed against the accused-petitioner and on that basis aforesaid criminal proceedings in Case No. 231/2018 were initiated. (3) During the trial, both the parties filed an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. to permit compounding of the aforesaid offences. (4) The trial Court partly allowed the application and permitted to compound the offence under Section 406 of IPC vide order dated 09.03.2022 but the prayer in respect of offence under Section 498-A of IPC was refused, as the same is not compoundable. (5) In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition to quash the aforesaid criminal proceedings pending before the trial Court on the ground that the parties have resolved their dispute. (5) In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition to quash the aforesaid criminal proceedings pending before the trial Court on the ground that the parties have resolved their dispute. (6) On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties; the material made available for my perusal and considering that the petitioner and complainant (who are husband and wife respectively) have resolved their dispute by living separately and filed an application for mutual divorce under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act; in order to give quietus to the litigation, and also finding that the present case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2012 Cri. L.J. (SC) 4934 and State of Haryana and Others vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604 , the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties although the offence is not compoundable. (7) In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Pali in Criminal Case No. 231/2018 are quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow. (8) The stay application also stands disposed of.” 3.6 Learned counsel has relied upon the precedent laws laid by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 6851/2022, decided on 15.11.2022); by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Pramod Kumar Kirar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Civil Appeal No. 8934/2022, decided on 02.12.2022), State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Love Kush Meena, AIR 2021 SC 1610 and Avatar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 . 3.7 Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 14.03.2023 in Badri Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14681/2019, decided on 14.03.2023 and the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Pawan Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Appeal (Writ) No. 1334/2019, decided on 27.01.2022. 3.8 Learned counsel further submits that in light of the aforesaid factual matrix, this Court was pleased to pass an interim protection, which is an order dated 21.06.2021, which reads as follows: “In the wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, the Court is functioning virtually and abundant caution is being maintained for the safety of all concerned. This Court takes note of the fact that the offences alleged against the petitioner are matrimonial. Issue notice to the respondents. Learned AAG Mr. Anil Gaur accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and seeks some time to complete his instructions. Time prayed for is allowed. List on 5.7.2021. In the meanwhile, effect and operation of the order dated 31.5.2021 (Annex.5) shall remain stayed.” 4. Per contra, Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG and Mr. Shrawan Kumar, Dy. Govt. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submit that a considered decision has been taken denying appointment to the petitioner as he is on post of School Lecturer, which is of the highest hierarchy in the teaching community of the State, and any kind of scar on the moral fabric would be detrimental to the cause, for which, the petitioner was being inducted in service. 4.1 Learned counsel for the respondents have also referred to the notification dated 04.12.2019, in which, the offence under Section 498A IPC has been treated to be an offence causing bar to the State service. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 6. This Court finds that the petitioner has already qualified after undergoing the regular selection process for the post of School Lecturer (History) and his appointment order dated 18.03.2021 posting him at Government Senior Secondary School, Dhalop, Desuri, District Pali has entitled him to join the service, but for the police verification report and the consequential order of cancellation of the appointment. 7. This Court finds that the circular dated 04.12.2019 is a general regulation, which does not have a mandatory impact because it has also left the discretion open for the appointing authority to apply its mind and the guideline laid down in the circular is only a path which is to guide the appointing authority, who shall have to take an independent decision. The relevant paragraph of the circular reads as follows: ^^jktLFkku ljdkj Øekad iaŒ 1¼1½ dkfeZd@d&2@2016 t;iqj] fnukad% 4-12-2019 1- leLr vfrŒ eq[; lfpo@Áeq[k 'kklu lfpo@'kklu lfpo@fof'k"V 'kklu lfpoA 2- leLr foHkkxk/;{k ¼laHkkxh; vk;qDr ,oa ftyk dysDVlZ½ lfgrA ifji= fo"k;% jktdh; lsok esa@inksa ij p;fur vH;kfFkZ;ksa dk pfj= lR;kiuA --------------- mDrkuqlkj ;g fufoZokn gS fd fdlh vH;FkhZ dks fu;qfDr fn, tkus@ugha fn;s tkus dk fu.kZ; vafre :i ls fu;qfDr Ákf/kdkjh dks gh] lqlaxr lsok fu;eksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij ysuk gksxkA rFkkfi dqN Ádj.k ,slh Ád`fr ds gksaxs ftuesa Li"Vr% ;g ekuk tk ldrk gS fd vH;FkhZ fu;qfDr gsrq ik= ugha gSa tcfd vU; dqN ,sls Ádj.k Hkh gksaxs ftuesa fu;qfDr ls oafpr fd;k tkuk fdlh Hkh n`f"V ls mfpr@U;k;iw.kZ ugha ekuk tk ldrkA vr% fu;qfDr vf/kdkfj;ksa ds lkekU; ekxZn'kZukFkZ funsZ'ku ds :i esa ,slh Ád`fr ds Ádj.kksa dks ;gka ys[kc} fd;k tk jgk gS%& 1- ,sls Ádj.k@fLFkfr;ka ftuesa fu;qfDr gsrq vik=rk ekuh tkuh pkfg,%& ;fn fdlh Hkh vH;FkhZ ds fo:) fuEu esa ls fdlh Hkh Ádkj ds vijk/k ds rgr Ádj.k vUos{k.kk/khu@U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu 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,%& ¼1½ uSfrd v/kerk ;Fkk Ny] dwVjpuk] eRrrk] cykr~lax] fdlh efgyk dh yTtk Hkax djus ds vijk/k eas vUroZfyrrk gksA ¼2½ Lokid vkS"kf/k vkSj eu%ÁHkkoh inkFkZ voS/k O;kikj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 ¼1988 dk vf/kfu;e la[;k 26½ esa ;FkkifjHkkf"kr voS/k O;kikj esa vUroZfyrrk gksA ¼3½ vuSfrd O;kikj ¼fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk dsUæh; vf/kfu;e la[;k 104½ esa ;FkkifjHkkf"kr vuSfrd nqO;kZikj esa vUroZfyrrk gksA ¼4½ fu;ksftr fgalk ;k jkT; ds fo:) ,sls fdlh vijk/k esa vUroZfyrrk gks] tks Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860 dk dsUæh; vf/kfu;e la[;k 45½ ds v/;k; 6 esa of.kZr gSA ¼5½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds v/;k; 16 ,oa 17 esa ;Fkkof.kZr vijk/kksa esa varoZfyrrk gksA ¼6½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 147] 148 ¼cyok djuk½ ds vijk/k esa varoZfyrrk gksA ¼7½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 498, ¼fL=;ksa ds Áfr vkijkf/kd nqO;Zogkj&ngst½ ds vijk/k esa varoZfyrrk gksA ¼8½ vtk@vttk vf/kfu;e 1989 ds rgr vijk/k esa varoZfyrrk gksA ¼9½ ySafxx vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e ¼iksDlks½] 2012 ds rgr vijk/k esa vUroZfyrrkA ;gka ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr Ádkj ds vijk/kksa ls lacaf/kr dksbZ Hkh lwpuk tkucw>dj fNikus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa dks Hkh fu;qfDr gsrq vik= ekuk tk,xkA ,lMh@& ¼jkyh flag½ Áeq[k 'kklu lfpoA** 8. The Rule, when read with the aforesaid notification, which is said to be applicable in the present case, gives sufficient discretion to the appointing authority to go into the peculiar factual matrix of the case. The petitioner in the present case has not made any false declaration nor can be said to have concealed any fact regarding pendency of the case against him. Furthermore, the conduct of the petitioner is reflected from the fact that he moved an application for restitution of conjugal rights whereas his wife had moved an application for divorce, whereafter, vide a well reasoned judgment, the learned trial court had dismissed the petition of the wife seeking divorce, whereas the application moved by the petitioner seeking restitution of conjugal rights was allowed. 9. This Court is also cognizant of the fact that thereafter, the husband and wife have buried their dispute, and resultantly, the S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3180/2022, this Hon’ble Court has quashed the criminal case, and thus, no criminal case as on date exists against the present petitioner. 10. The judgments referred by learned counsel for the petitioner throw light on the circumstance, in which, the appointing authority could venture into allowing the appointment if it is not impacting the moral fabric required for discharging the required duties by the concerned person. 11. Thus, while taking into consideration the factum of the matrimonial dispute, as well as keeping in view the prescription of the Rules of 1971, the notification dated 04.12.2019 whereby final discretion has been given to the appointing authority in the matter, and also looking into the peculiar factual matrix, wherein the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed whereas divorce petition filed by the wife was rejected and lastly the quashing of the FIR in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3180/2022, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed. 11.1. Accordingly, the office order dated 31.05.2021 (Annexure-5) is quashed and set aside, while directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join the post of School Lecturer (History) in pursuance of the appointment order dated 18.03.2021 and the petitioner shall be entitled for all the notional benefit w.e.f. 21.06.2021 when the interim order was passed i.e. 21.06.2021. 11.1. Accordingly, the office order dated 31.05.2021 (Annexure-5) is quashed and set aside, while directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join the post of School Lecturer (History) in pursuance of the appointment order dated 18.03.2021 and the petitioner shall be entitled for all the notional benefit w.e.f. 21.06.2021 when the interim order was passed i.e. 21.06.2021. The appointment shall be given within three months from the date of judgment and the actual benefits shall be given from such date. However, it shall be open for the respondents to change the place of posting of the petitioner, if the place in question is already being occupied by some other incumbent. 11.2 All pending applications stand disposed of.