ORDER : 1. The petitioner herein seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order and/or direction to the respondents to consider his candidature for appointment on the post of Cooperative Inspector pursuant to the selection result dated 13.07.2021 (Annexure-6) pursuant to the advertisement dated 02.04.2018. Claim is that despite being otherwise meritorious and eligible, he has been unfairly denied appointment due to pending criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial dispute between him and his estranged wife. Criminal proceedings were instituted at her instance. Less meritorious candidates have been appointed as per the order dated 24.12.2021. 2. The facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner had got married with Dr. Ruchika Gupta on 26.02.2020, but their relationship could not remain cordial. Their differences led to filing an FIR No. 67/2020 by his wife at Mahila Thana Police Station, Bhopal, for alleged offences under Sections 498A & 506/34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2.1. Meanwhile, the petitioner participated in the selection process and was successful on the post in question. Subsequently, he was required to give his options for postings and other details, for which he submitted his prescribed form on 07.09.2020. In this form (Annexure-1), there was no column to give any detail declaring anything about pendency of criminal case against the candidate. In the said FIR challan was also filed by the police on28.12.2020, but the trial had yet not commenced. 2.2. However, when he was called for an interview on 30.06.2021, an attestation form was to be filled up for verification by the Police Department. In the attestation form there was a column No.12 with regard to furnishing information as to whether the candidate was ever convicted by any Court. Since the petitioner was not convicted, he left the column No.12 blank in the attestation form. 2.3. The RPSC declared the final result on 13.07.2021, in which the petitioner stood at merit No. 534. Notwithstanding, vide an order dated 24.12.2021, based on recommendations of the RPSC, in list of appointees’ name of petitioner was missing. Less meritorious candidates than the petitioner were given appointment. The petitioner approached the respondents by filing representations. It was then that he came to know that due to lodging of an FIR against him by his estranged wife, appointment has not been given. Hence, this petition. 3. Less meritorious candidates than the petitioner were given appointment. The petitioner approached the respondents by filing representations. It was then that he came to know that due to lodging of an FIR against him by his estranged wife, appointment has not been given. Hence, this petition. 3. The stand taken by the respondents is that in the attestation form neither the petitioner denied being convicted nor the petitioner stated the details of pending criminal case. It is submitted that Point No.1(vii) of the Circular dated 04.12.2019 issued by the Department of Personnel with regard to character verification of candidates clearly stated that any candidate against whom a criminal case under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code is pending investigation/under trial, he/she will not be entitled for appointment. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the case file. 5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the charges have been framed nor the petitioner has been convicted in that FIR. He further submits that petitioner has not concealed any fact regarding having any criminal case pending against him because it is for the first time that an information was sought by the Commission regarding conviction of a candidate in any criminal case and since there was no conviction against the petitioner, he left the column blank in the attestation form. 5.1. Learned counsel relies on a co-ordinate Bench judgment rendered in Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors . , [2016 (3) WLC 345] wherein, it was held that on account of pendency of criminal case the petitioner cannot be denied appointment. In the case of Mukesh Kumar (supra), the co-ordinate bench of this Court after considering various aspects of the matter laid down as under:- “15. Viewed in light of the above factual scenario, it is evident that the Rules not post any hurdle against the petitioner’s right to be appointed in the police services. At best, a rider can be imposed in the petitioner’s appointment order that in the event of conviction in the above criminal case, he may be liable to be terminated from service without holding any enquiry and an undertaking in this regard can be procured from him in this regard. 16. At best, a rider can be imposed in the petitioner’s appointment order that in the event of conviction in the above criminal case, he may be liable to be terminated from service without holding any enquiry and an undertaking in this regard can be procured from him in this regard. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner on the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the questioned selection process ignoring the pendency of the above criminal case against the petitioner. However, the appointment order shall bear a condition that the petitioner’s services may be terminated in the event of his conviction and he shall also submit an undertaking to this effect before joining to the post. Since the petitioner was gainfully employed as a Teacher during the intervening period, he is not entitled to any consequential benefits. However, the respondents shall grant him all notional services benefits from the date of the order Annex.6 dated 22.12.2009.” 6. The above judgment was subsequently also reaffirmed and followed in Amrit Pal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13198/2024 , decided on 27.11.2024, wherein the alleged offences also arose from matrimonial dispute, relevant of which is reproduced hereinvelow:- “9. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the judgment ibid and see no reason why the benefits thereof be not given to the petitioner. 10. I am unable to convince myself with the insipidity of the argument adopted by the learned counsel for respondents that since the charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, petitioner does not deserve to be appointed. Despite allegations under IPC Sections 498A, 406, 323, and 494, the petitioner is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The circular dated 04.12.2019 and the impugned order unjustly bar his appointment based solely on pending criminal charges. The action of respondents infringes upon the petitioner’s rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, denying equal treatment and personal liberty without a fair trial. Moreover, failure to apply the Supreme Court's guidelines in Avtar Singh (Supra) regarding pending criminal cases indicates nothing else but a flawed decision-making on the part of the respondents.” 7. The action of respondents infringes upon the petitioner’s rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, denying equal treatment and personal liberty without a fair trial. Moreover, failure to apply the Supreme Court's guidelines in Avtar Singh (Supra) regarding pending criminal cases indicates nothing else but a flawed decision-making on the part of the respondents.” 7. Having heard and perused the record, I am of the opinion that being a matrimonial dispute, same does not in any manner impinge on the nature of duties to be performed by the petitioner. It does not even amount to a moral turpitude without there being any finding of facts and or criminal culpability. At best, the petitioner is merely an under trial and his fate is yet to be governed depending on the outcome of the trial. Furthermore, possibility of a compromise between husband and wife cannot be ruled out at subsequent stage. 8. I see no reason why the benefits of judgment ibid be not given to the petitioner. 9. The action of respondents infringes upon the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution i.e. denying equal treatment and personal liberty without a fair trial. Pertinently, at the time of the job advertisement, no FIR or trial proceedings were pending. The respondent’s delay deprived the petitioner of a rightful appointment. In any case, pending criminal trial, unless of course proven guilty by way of conviction, cannot bar appointments. 10. Resultantly, for the reasons recorded in the preceding part of the order, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to do the needful within a period of 30 days from the date petitioner approaches the competent authority of the respondents with a web print of the instant order and in case the petitioner is found otherwise meritorious and eligible, benefit of his performance be given to him on parity with his counterparts, with whom, he had competed pursuant to the same advertisement. 11. Petitioner in case is meted out with the favourable treatment, he shall be entitled to notional benefits and seniority with effect from the same date as his other counterparts were appointed, but for the period he remained out of service, no financial benefits shall be accorded on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. His appointment shall be subject to outcome of the pending trial against him. His appointment shall be subject to outcome of the pending trial against him. The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that in case, he is convicted in the criminal trial, he shall not claim any equity on the basis of the instant order. 13. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.