JUDGMENT : ANAND SHARMA, J. 1. The petitioner, in the instant writ petition, has prayed for a direction against the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Basic Computer Instructor pursuant to order dated 13.04.2023 and not to cancel his appointment on the aforesaid post due to pendency of criminal case against him. 2. Factual matrix of the case which is are relevant for adjudication of the dispute involved in the instant writ petition are that one advertisement dated 01.02.2022 was issued by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, whereby applications were invited from all eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Basic Compute Instructor. The petitioner has come out with a case that he being eligible for holding the aforesaid post, participated in the process and ultimately after being selected, one appointment order dated 13.04.2023 was issued by District Education Officer, Headquarter, Secondary, Jaipur, whereby petitioner was appointed on the post of Basic Compute Instructor subject to the condition that prior to joining, character verification report shall be obtained. 3. It has been stated by the petitioner that pursuant to aforesaid condition, he was asked to fill up one verification form. On the basis of which the police authorities submitted verification reports mentioning therein that one FIR No. 383/2012, registered at Police Station Toonga, Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 326 of IPC was lodged against the petitioner on 10.07.2012, pursuant to which charge- sheet No. 134/2013 dated 24.07.2013 has been filed in competent Court and the trial is pending in the aforesaid case. Petitioner has stated that in the application form filled by the petitioner pursuant to aforesaid advertisement, he was only required to disclose as to whether he was ex-prisoner or not. Since the petitioner was not an ex-prisoner, therefore, he mentioned ‘No’ against the aforesaid column. Petitioner states that merely on the basis of pendency of criminal case, the respondents cannot deny appointment to the petitioner, however, till this date, he has not been allowed to join on the aforesaid post, therefore, he was constrained to file the instant writ petition. 4. Petitioner states that merely on the basis of pendency of criminal case, the respondents cannot deny appointment to the petitioner, however, till this date, he has not been allowed to join on the aforesaid post, therefore, he was constrained to file the instant writ petition. 4. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition mentioning therein that although, the petitioner was selected and appointment order was also issued in his favour yet, as per the condition of appointment order, only after obtaining character certificate with regard to the antecedents of the petitioner, joining could be given to the petitioner. However, in the instant case vide letter dated 04.04.2023 issued by the Office of Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, the aforesaid criminal case was shown to be pending against the petitioner. It was mentioned by the respondents that earlier the Department of Personnel has issued two circulars dated 15.07.2016 and 04.12.2019 to deal with the matters, where in police verification, criminal cases are found to be pending against the candidates. In both the aforesaid circulars, it has been clearly mentioned that if criminal cases under Sections 147 and 148 of IPC are pending against the candidate then, he shall be considered to be ineligible to hold the post in common service. Hence, in view of aforesaid circulars, petitioner was not allowed to join. It was also mentioned in the reply that petitioner himself has not disclosed the pendency of criminal case against him and it has come out only in the police verification, therefore, on account of incomplete and distorted information given by the petitioner, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit and is liable to be rejected. 5. I have carefully heard learned counsel for the parties and also examined material on record. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the criminal case lodged against him has nothing to do with his public life and was merely lodged on account of personal rivalry. In the application form, the petitioner was only required to disclose that was he an ex-prisoner or not; hence as per the scope of question, he was required to put ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. Since he was not an ex-prisoner, therefore, he has rightly answered the same as ‘No’. In the application form, the petitioner was only required to disclose that was he an ex-prisoner or not; hence as per the scope of question, he was required to put ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. Since he was not an ex-prisoner, therefore, he has rightly answered the same as ‘No’. Therefore, there was no suppression of fact on his part and merely on account of pendency of such case, he cannot be denied appointment. 7. Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2024) 5 SCC 264 , Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 , Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and ors. reported in (1996) 4 SCC 17 and Ranveer Kumar Vs. Jodhspur Vidhyut Vit. Nigam Ltd. And Anr.:S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6136/2015 , decided on 02.08.2024 at Principal Seat, Jodhpur. 8. On the contrary, counsel for the respondents has stated that verification of character and antecedents of candidates before their appointment in government service is an important process, so that the persons having objectionable antecedents may not enter into the service. It has also been stated that even in the cases where the persons has been acquitted from all the charges, it is a discretion of the employer to appoint the candidate or not, on the basis of nature of allegations against him. In the instant case, after examining of such matters where specific circulars have been issued by the State Government, the respondents have rightly not allowed the petitioner to join on the post of Basic Computer Instructor. 9. In the case of Ravindra Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the earlier judgments of Pawan Kumar (supra), Avtar Singh (supra), has held that even in the cases where there was non-disclosure of criminal case, it would be useless to hold that every such non-disclosure may be termed as disqualification. It has also been observed that broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities. Hence, each case will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail in therein, and the Court will have to take a holistic view based on objective criteria, with the available precedents serving as a guide. 10. It has also been observed that broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities. Hence, each case will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail in therein, and the Court will have to take a holistic view based on objective criteria, with the available precedents serving as a guide. 10. In the case of Ranveer Kumar (supra) , this Court has considered the question as to whether the candidate can be denied appointment on the ground of pendency of criminal case and has observed that criminal justice system is founded on the Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code and Evidence Act to lay norms for admissibility of evidence. Unless a person is held guilty by conviction in a trial held by the Court, the presumption of his innocence has to be construed. Mere involvement in a criminal case when the trial is still under way is not a mirror to reflect the criminal or unsound character of a person. 11. The respondents have also stated that the petitioner has not clearly disclosed with regard to pendency of aforesaid criminal case, which amounts to concealment on his part. Such contention raised by the respondents is not justifiable for the reason that relevant column in the application form was totally vague and was confined only to disclosure with regard to a candidate being an ex- prisoner or not. As limited information was required in the application form, which was correctly given by the petitioner and there being no other column in the application form requiring him to disclose even the pending criminal matters, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner has suppressed any relevant information. Therefore, even on the ground of alleged concealment, which is otherwise not established in the instant case, depriving the petitioner of his legitimate rights for appointment is totally unjustified and the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on the post of Basic Computer Instructor. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join on the post of Basic Computer Instructor pursuant to appointment order dated 13.04.2023. He is also entitled for all consequential benefits, in notional terms, from the date on which other persons appointed through aforesaid appointment order dated 13.04.2023 have been allowed to join their services. 13. He is also entitled for all consequential benefits, in notional terms, from the date on which other persons appointed through aforesaid appointment order dated 13.04.2023 have been allowed to join their services. 13. The writ petition is hereby allowed in the aforesaid terms. 14. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.