ORDER : (ARUN MONGA, J.) 1. The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks the quashing of an order dated 23.11.2021 (Annex.-5), vide which he was deemed ineligible for appointment, and requests his appointment to the position of Constable in accordance with the advertisement dated 25.05.2018. 2. Brief facts first. A criminal case against the petitioner was resolved in his favor on 16.01.2018. Subsequent thereto, the respondents issued a notification/advertisement on 25.05.2018, inviting applications for various posts, including the position of Constable (General), for which the petitioner, being fully eligible, applied on 06.06.2018. After successfully clearing all stages of examination, he was selected and assigned to the Rajsamand district for appointment. Meanwhile, on 02.03.2020, a notification was issued outlining disqualification criteria, including cases resolved through compromise (Rajinama). As part of the appointment process, the petitioner was asked to undergo character certificate verification through the SHO of Bhim via a letter dated 15.06.2021, which he duly completed within the stipulated time. However, despite fulfilling all the necessary requirements, he received a. order/letter dated 23.11.2021, assailed herein, declaring him ineligible for appointment due to the prior resolution of a criminal case through compromise, even though the case had been settled in his favor years earlier. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the instant petition. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and perused the case file. 4. As regards the factual assertion of the respondents, the following pointed stand has been taken in para 2 & 6 of the reply, which are reproduced herein below :- “2. That the averments contained in para No.2 of the writ petition are admitted to the extent they are in consonance with the advertisement dated 25.05.2018, An.1. However, thereafter a short amendment was also issued in regard to number of posts in District Rajsamand and in all 139 posts were advertised. The petitioner in pursuance of the said advertisement applied online but very strangely despite of having the full knowledge that a FIR is registered against him he did not mention about the same in the application for while mentioned the word ‘No’, which is apparent from the application of the petitioner. Thus a deliberate and intentional act of concealment / suppression was made by the petitioner which in itself disentitles him to get any relief from this Hon’ble Court. xxxxxxxxxxxx 6. Thus a deliberate and intentional act of concealment / suppression was made by the petitioner which in itself disentitles him to get any relief from this Hon’ble Court. xxxxxxxxxxxx 6. That though a suitable reply to the averments contained in para No.6 of the writ petition has already been submitted in paras No.3 and 4 of the reply hereinabove, but it is again reiterated at the cost of repetition that learned Trial Court acquitted the petitioner u/s 143, 324/149 while extending the benefit of doubt on account of absence of sufficient evidence, which legally speaking in no manner can be said to be an ‘honourable acquittal’ and further acquitted him for the offence u/s 341, 323/149 IPC in the light of the compromise entered into between the parties which also cannot be said to be ‘honourable acquittal’. However, the departmental committee after carefully examining the case of the petitioner and while placing reliance on Point No.02 of the notification dated 02.03.2020 did not find the petitioner eligible for appointment on the post of Constable, which is perfectly just, legal and in consonance with law and deserves to be maintained by this Hon’ble Court.” 5. The alleged concealment of non-disclosure of the criminal case seems to have weighed in the mind of the respondents while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. However, what they were unmindful of was the fact that as on the cut-off date of filling up the application form i.e. 14.06.2018, petitioner had already been exonerated by the trial Court and he stood acquitted, though, no doubt, due to a compromise. 6. A citizen, who is acquitted of the criminal trial, has all the right to consider himself as a free citizen of the country and is not to treat himself either as an under trial or as a suspect or convict in any manner and therefore, he rightly opted for option ‘No’ while filling up the form. 7. Even otherwise, the petitioner has been acquitted of all charges by a competent court of law. Trite it may sound, but on the principle of presumption of innocence, an acquittal restores the petitioner's status as a law-abiding citizen. The respondents' stand that the acquittal was not "honorable" is merely speculative. The acquittal remains valid unless set aside in appeal. No such appeal against acquittal was filed by the State. Trite it may sound, but on the principle of presumption of innocence, an acquittal restores the petitioner's status as a law-abiding citizen. The respondents' stand that the acquittal was not "honorable" is merely speculative. The acquittal remains valid unless set aside in appeal. No such appeal against acquittal was filed by the State. Denying the petitioner an appointment solely due to an FIR/trial, in which he has been acquitted by the competent Court, amounts to punishing him by the respondent/prospective employers. 7.2 An individual acquitted after trial cannot be stigmatized for having been part of a criminal trial in past. Moreover, denying an employment opportunity to an accused who is acquitted is against the principle of reintegration of such individuals into society. Being so, I see no reason on what grounds the respondents are pleading that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit of the acquittal. 8. In this context, I have had an occasion to render a judgment in case titled Rajendra Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15957/2021. Relevant thereof are paras 12 to 20 which are not being reproduced for sake of brevity. 9. Same view was taken by me in Shankar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and other SB Civil Writ Petition No. 756/2022 decided on 18.11.2024. 10. As an upshot, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner on the post in question by determining his eligibility and merit, subject to availability of the post as on today. 11. Needless to say that if the petitioner is found meritorious, then only he may be accorded the benefit of his performance. In the event that no vacancy is currently available, he will be considered for the position as soon as the next vacancy arises. 12. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be accorded all the notional benefits including seniority with effect from the same date his counterparts were appointed pursuant to the selection process wherein petition also competed along with them. However, for the period he remained out of service, he shall not be entitled to any financial benefits on the principal of ‘No Work No Pay’. 13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.