Order : 1. Under challenge herein is an order dated 13.07.2021 (Annex.10), vide which, selection of the petitioner on the post of Constable Driver was rejected on the ground of pendency of criminal case against him. 2. The petitioner completed his senior secondary examination in 2012 and obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in 2015. He later acquired a driving license. On 04.12.2019, an advertisement for recruitment to the posts of Constable General and Constable Driver was issued by respondent No. 3, which included 12 posts of Constable Driver for the 8th Battalion, RAC(IR), Gazipur, Delhi.The petitioner, eligible for the Constable Driver post, applied under the OBC non-creamy layer category. 2.1. The petitioner appeared for the written examination on 06.11.2020 and qualified, securing high marks under the general category despite applying as an OBC candidate. He then appeared and qualified in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and Physical Standard Test (PST) on 10.04.2021. 2.2. On 17.04.2021, the petitioner was selected for the Constable Driver post, ranked No.1 under the general male category, and was called for document verification on 26.04.2021. During verification, the petitioner disclosed a criminal case registered against him, which he was exonerated from by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, on22.01.2021. 2.2. Despite submitting the exonerating judgment, the respondents canceled the petitioner’s selection vide an order dated 13.07.2021 (Annex.10), citing his involvement in the criminal case. The cancellation was based on the decision of the Superintendent of Police (Recruitment & Promotion) Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur, referencing a notification dated 02.03.2020. The petitioner’s candidature was deemed ineligible under sub-rule (2)of Rule 13, prompting to filing of this petition. 3. The relevant stance in the reply is that, while submitting the online application form for the post in question, the petitioner, in response to the column "Whether any FIR has ever been lodged against you," answered "No." However, during verification, it was discovered that FIR No. 475/2019 under Sections 323, 341, 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC was registered against him. Therefore, the petitioner intentionally concealed this fact and deliberately entered "No" in the column. Consequently, he is not entitled to any relief from this Court, and his petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and have gone through the case file. 5. Therefore, the petitioner intentionally concealed this fact and deliberately entered "No" in the column. Consequently, he is not entitled to any relief from this Court, and his petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and have gone through the case file. 5. No doubt at the time of filling up the online application for the post in question the petitioner did not disclose the factum of registration of an FIR against him. Reasons are not far to seek. He must have been in a dilemma that in case he discloses the same, there was high prospect of being disqualified at that very stage. He will not be allowed to participate in the selection process. Moreover, his dilemma seems to have arisen from his bonafide belief that he was falsely implicated in the FIR, as no role of any kind was attributed to him. He was not even a principal accused, though, of course, was arrayed as accused being part of assembly of people who were present at the scene of occurrence, which led to registration of FIR. 6. In somewhat similar circumstances, in the case of Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5902/2012), decided on 22 nd February 2024 , Supreme Court addressed an issue akin to what is herein, where a candidate who had explicitly stated in an affidavit that no criminal proceedings were pending against him. While dealing with this situation, the Supreme Court observed as under:- “29. xxx xxx xxx X. While examining whether the procedure adopted for enquiry by the authority was fair and reasonable, we find that the order of cancellation of 12.04.2005 does not even follow the mandate prescribed in Clause 4 of the Form of verification of character set out in the earlier part of this judgment. Like it was found in Ram Kumar (supra) instead of considering whether the appellant was suitable for appointment, the Appointing Authority has mechanically held his selection was irregular and illegal because the appellant had furnished an affidavit with incorrect facts. Hence, even applying the board principles set out in para 93.7 of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) , we find that the order of cancellation dated 12.04.2005 is neither fair nor reasonable. Hence, even applying the board principles set out in para 93.7 of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) , we find that the order of cancellation dated 12.04.2005 is neither fair nor reasonable. Clause 9 of the recruitment notification has to be read in the context of the law laid down in the cases set out hereinabove. 30. On the facts of the case and in the backdrop of the special circumstances set out hereinabove, where does the non-disclosure of the unfortunate criminal case, (which too ended in acquittal), stand in the scheme of things? In our opinion on the peculiar facts of the case, we do not think it can be deemed fatal for the appellant. Board- brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse country. Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and the court will have to take a holistic view, based on objective criteria, with the available precedents serving as a guide. It can never be a one size fits all scenario.” 7. Per contra the above, learned counsel for the respondents relies on an another judgment of Supreme Court rendered in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyug Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Anil Kanwariya , reported in (2021) 10 SCC 136 , wherein it was held as under :- “12. The issue/question may be considered from another angle, from the employer’s point of view. The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment, i.e., while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST. Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and as observed hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right.” 8. While the observations contained hereinabove, no doubt gives the discretion to an employer to disqualify candidate in case of non-disclosure / suppression of the material facts but the pressing question would be that whether it is a case of the employer having a trust deficit arising out of the non-disclosure by a candidate? 9. In the present case, rejection of the petitioner’s candidature does not seem to be based on trust deficit but merely a mechanical exercise of mind by stating that since (i) he suppressed the registration of the FIR; and (ii) registration of the FIR disqualifies him, therefore, he was not eligible to be appointed. 10. The impugned order does not reflect that there was an objective view taken by independent application of mind. Decision was merely regarding petitioner’s ineligibility, and it is owing to that he was held to be non-suitable. 11. Accordingly, I see no reason why the benefit of latest judgment of Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar, ibid, be not accorded to the petitioner. 12. It is accordingly so ordered. 13. As an upshot, the petition is allowed. As during pendency of the writ proceedings, vide an interim order dated 22.07.2021, one post was ordered to be kept vacant, respondents are, therefore, directed to give the benefit of the said interim protection to the petitioner by passing appropriate orders for petitioner’s appointment pursuant to his selection and allow him to join the service, subject of course to his otherwise being eligible and meritorious in the selection process. 14. 14. Necessary exercise be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date petitioner approaches the respondents with a web print of the instant order. 15. 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’, however, 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. 16. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.