ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved of the action of the respondent authorities in not permitting him to join his duties on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) in pursuance to the appointment order dated 18.02.2019 (Annex.7) issued by the respondent No.4 - Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Dhanau, District Barmer. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are the petitioner pursued the BSTC Course in the year 2012 and thereafter he qualified the Rajasthan Teachers Eligibility Examination, 2015. The respondentNo.2-Director, Directorate of Elementary Education and Panchayati Raj (Elementary Education), Rajasthan, Bikaner issued the advertisement No.1/2018 dated 12.04.2018 for recruitment on the posts of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) (Non-TSP Area). The petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category and is otherwise fully eligible and qualified for the advertised post, applied for the same. He participated in the recruitment process successfully and was allotted District Barmer for appointment/posting. The document verification of the petitioner was done on 23.06.2018 and he was declared eligible for appointment on the post, in furtherance whereof the respondentNo.4 Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Dhanau, District Barmer issued the order dated 18.02.2019 (Annex.7) providing him appointment on the post of teacher Grade-III (Level-I) (General Education) and he was given posting at the Government Upper Primary School, Senwaron Ka Tala, Panchayat Samiti Dhanau, District Barmer. 3. As per condition No.3 of the appointment order dated18.02.2019, a candidate was required to produce a police verification certificate issued by the competent police officer of the concerned area regarding pendency of no criminal case against him and his good and clean character. It is worthwhile to mention here that a matrimonial dispute was going on between the petitioner and his wife, due to which the wife lodged FIRNo.51/2012 at the Police Station Mahila Thana, Ajmer against the petitioner and his family members for the offences under Section 498-A and 406 of the IPC, wherein after investigation a charge- sheet came to be filed against the petitioner and the matter was under trial at the time of issuance of the appointment order. In addition to that, proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were also pending against the petitioner. In addition to that, proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were also pending against the petitioner. The report issued by the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara had mention of the above case and thus, owing to pendency of criminal case, the petitioner was not allowed to join duties and therefore, he has approached this court through the instant writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, trial of the case under Section 498-A and 406 of the IPC has been completed and vide judgment dated 24.09.2024, the petitioner and his mother have been acquitted from the charge honourably. He further submits that application under Section 12 read with Section 18, 19, 20, 21 and 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by the petitioner's wife has also been rejected by the trial court vide judgment dated 16.10.2024. Learned counsel submits that both the aforesaid cases have been decided on their merits and it is a case of clean acquittal and thus, there remains no hurdle in appointment of the petitioner on the post for which he has been duly selected. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents is not present to argue the matter. A detailed reply to the writ petition has been filed, which has been taken into consideration while adjudicating the instant writ petition. 6. It is averred in the reply that the respondents were absolutely justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the basis of the police verification report and pendency of criminal case against him. It is further averred that in view of the Circulars dated 15.07.2016 and 04.12.2019, the petitioner was clearly ineligible for appointment as a criminal case for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC was pending against him. It is further submitted that as per Rule 256 of the Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996, at the time of employing a person, his good character is a necessary condition. The job of a teacher appointed in a school involves character building of future generations and a person with tainted character cannot be given appointment on such a post. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Imtiyaj Ali vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. The job of a teacher appointed in a school involves character building of future generations and a person with tainted character cannot be given appointment on such a post. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Imtiyaj Ali vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14240/2021) decided on 03.03.2022 and Mahnedra Garasiya vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4410/2019) decided on 24.07.2023. Much emphasis has been given to the Judgment rendered by a larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471 and it is submitted that it is upto the discretion of the employer to deny or give employment on the basis of eventualities of criminal trial/conviction/acquittal of a given aspirant. With these submissions, it is prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the material placed on the record. 8. It is an admitted position that except for the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner was eligible to be appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) pursuant to the subject advertisement. After filing of the writ petition, the same was listed before the court on 26.02.2019, on which date, while issuing notices, an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner directing the respondents not to cancel the appointment of the petitioner. During the pendency of the writ petition, the trial of the case pending against the petitioner has been concluded and the petitioner has been acquitted honourably from the charge of offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the said judgment dated24.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ajmer in Criminal Case No.297/2012. Further the application filed by the wife of the petitioner under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has also been dismissed vide judgment dated 16.10.2024. As such, the only hurdle in appointment of the petitioner does not exist anymore. 9. There is no denial of the fact that the employer has discretion to adjudge the suitability of a candidate and even in the cases of acquittal, appointment can be denied to a candidate. As such, the only hurdle in appointment of the petitioner does not exist anymore. 9. There is no denial of the fact that the employer has discretion to adjudge the suitability of a candidate and even in the cases of acquittal, appointment can be denied to a candidate. However, such discretion has to be exercised very cautiously and in such a way that a worthy aspirant is not deprived of his rightful chance to avail employment and not in a mechanical manner and it has to be based on entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, viz. criminal antecedents of an aspirant, nature and seriousness of the offence, basis of acquittal and whether the acquittal is honourable or is it based on a benefit of doubt or compromise. The circular dated 04.12.2019 itself takes care of such eventualities where a judgment of acquittal has been passed in favour of an aspirant. Be that as it may, in the considered opinion of this court, the present one is not such a case, where even after honourable acquittal, a candidate has to be deprived of an opportunity to avail public employment. The case which was pending against the petitioner was for the offences under Section 498-A and 406 of the IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again has shown concerns about growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. In the case at hand, the learned trial court has appreciated the oral as well documentary evidence in very detailed manner and thereafter came to a conclusion that there is no proper and reliable evidence available on record to prove the offences under Section 498-A and 406 of the IPC and as such, the petitioner was discharged honourably. The fact of personal vendetta is evident from the fact that during the pendency of the present writ petition, in the year 2023, the wife of the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC to be impleaded as a party respondent alleging that the petitioner has concealed the material fact of pendency of criminal case for availing employment. The fact remains that the wife had no occasion to file such an application as the respondents had already denied joining to the petitioner in the year 2019. The fact remains that the wife had no occasion to file such an application as the respondents had already denied joining to the petitioner in the year 2019. The said application filed by the petitioner's wife was rejected by the co-ordinate Bench with a clear observation that the application has been filed vindictively and to settle the score with the petitioner resulting from matrimonial discord. 10. So far as the judgments cited in the reply of the respondents are concerned, in the case of Mahendra Garasiya (supra) the petitioner was not acquitted honourably, but based on a compromise. In the case of Imtiyaj Ali (supra) and in the connected case of Bheeya Ram Jajra , the offences involved were of serious nature and the trial was still underway. As such, these cases are distinguishable from the case at hand, which is a case of clean acquittal. 11. So far as the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) is concerned, the present one is not a case where it is alleged that the petitioner has suppressed any material information. Further there is no denial of the fact that even in case of acquittal, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents. The same would be applicable in the present case too. At the time of police verification by the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara, only the case under Section 498-A of the IPC was pending against the petitioner, which has now been concluded. As such, if the criminal antecedents of the petitioner after the aforesaid police verification has been clean, he would definitely be entitled to get appointment. 12. In view of discussion made hereinabove, this court is of the considered view that the present one is a fit case for interference by exercising powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to allow the petitioner to join his duties on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) in pursuance of the appointment order dated18.02.2019 (Annex.7) if he is otherwise eligible. The petitioner shall be given a new place of posting in case there is no vacant post at the school mentioned in the order dated 18.02.2019. The compliance of this order shall be made within a period of one month from today. 13. The writ petition is allowed in these terms. The stay petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall be given a new place of posting in case there is no vacant post at the school mentioned in the order dated 18.02.2019. The compliance of this order shall be made within a period of one month from today. 13. The writ petition is allowed in these terms. The stay petition is disposed of. 14. No order as to costs.