Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 180 (RAJ)

Patram S/o Mangatu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2024-01-30

ARUN MONGA

body2024
ORDER : 1. The petitioner's grievance stems from the respondents' action of not allowing him to commence his duties as per the appointment order dated 07.12.2019 (Annexure-4). 2. Summarizing the petitioner's assertions, they participated in the recruitment process for the Physical Training Instructor (P.T.I.) Grade-III posts advertised by the respondents via the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Recruitment Board, Jaipur, as per advertisement No. 09/2018 dated 04.05.2018. Following the recruitment process, the petitioner was declared successful and subsequently, on 07.12.2019, appointed to the position at Government Senior Secondary School, Jhanpalikalan, Shiv, Block Shiv, Barmer. However, prior to commencing his duties, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner by his wife, resulting in a delay in his joining as the respondent No. 4 cited the pending FIR as grounds for refusal. 3. I have heard rival contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as those of learned counsel representing the respondents. 4. Before adverting to the same, it would be apposite to reproduce the interim order dated 19.12.2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court earlier seized of the matter, vide which the present petitioner was granted interim protection, which is as follows: “Issue notice. Copy of the writ petition be served on Mr. Hemant Choudhary, G.C. who may complete his instructions in the matter/file reply by the next date. List the matter on 14.01.2020. In the meanwhile, the appointment accorded to the petitioner shall not be cancelled by the respondents.” 5. In view of the aforesaid order, which has remained in the subsistence during the pendency of the proceeding, there is no quibble that the post in question is very much available as no other incumbent has been appointed on the same. Though there is some dispute with regard to the violation of the interim order, for which, the petitioner has already preferred the contempt proceedings, and therefore, this Court would refrain to make any comments qua the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to contempt. 6. Turning to the petitioner's case on its merits, it is acknowledged, as per the respondents' submitted response, that the petitioner did not withhold any information regarding the FIR against him. 6. Turning to the petitioner's case on its merits, it is acknowledged, as per the respondents' submitted response, that the petitioner did not withhold any information regarding the FIR against him. Before joining his duties, he voluntarily disclosed the existence of FIR No. 309/2019, registered at Police Station Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 354 of IPC, initiated by his estranged wife due to marital discord. Furthermore, the criminal trial stemming from this FIR has concluded with the petitioner's acquittal. 7. The only opposition at this stage for not allowing the petition is reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the Apex Court judgment rendered in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, 2016 (8) SCC 471 . 8. Having perused the judgment, ibid, what has to be borne in mind is that candidates must truthfully disclose information regarding convictions, acquittals, arrests, or pending criminal cases to their employers, both before and after employment, without suppression or false statements. Employers, when terminating services or canceling candidatures due to false information, should consider special circumstances and relevant government regulations. Additionally, appropriate actions should be taken if there is suppression or false information regarding involvement in a criminal case, depending on its nature. The accuracy and specificity of attestation/verification forms are crucial, and guilt for suppression or false suggestion requires attributable knowledge. Employers, no doubt, can maintain their discretion in considering disclosed information and are not obligated to appoint candidates even if truthful disclosures are made, particularly in cases involving multiple pending cases or serious criminal offenses. 9. In the instant case there is no allegation of suppression or concealment on the part of petitioner. Even the offences, at the relevant time when he was embroiled in, did not in any manner impinge on the nature of duties which are/were to be performed by the petitioner. Be that as it may, he in any case stands acquitted and has vindicated himself. 10. As an upshot of my discussion, as above, there is no justification for denying the petitioner appointment on the post he has been selected for. 11. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, mandating the respondents to allow the petitioner to join his duties within 30 days of his application to the competent authority, along with a copy web print of this order/judgment. 12. 11. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, mandating the respondents to allow the petitioner to join his duties within 30 days of his application to the competent authority, along with a copy web print of this order/judgment. 12. Regarding monitory benefits, it is clarified that the petitioner shall not be entitled to remuneration for the period of non-service, adhering to the principle of “no work, no pay.” However, all other notional benefits viz. seniority etc. related to the same selection process, in which the petitioner participated, will be conferred upon him with effect from the same date as his counterparts who were allowed to join service.