Rajasthan v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary

Judgment

4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur Rajasthan. Additional Director General Of Police, (Recruitment And Promotion Board) Rajasthan Jaipur. Inspector General Of Police Rac, Rajasthan Jaipur. Commandant 13Th Battalion, Rac (Prison Security) Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 30/07/2025 Under challenge is an order dated 24.02.2023 (Ann.8) passed by the Commandant, 13th Battalion, RAC (Prison Security), Jaipur, rejecting the candidature of petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable (General) in 13th Battalion RAC (Prison Security), Jaipur, against the vacancies, notified vide advertisement dated 29.10.2021, fundamentally due to

concealment of a criminal case arising out of FIR No. 255/1995 registered for offences u/s. 147, 148, 149, 323 & 324 IPC, wherein finally, after trial, a decision has been rendered on

04.08.2007 and petitioner was given benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short “the Act of 1958”) and it was observed by the court that this judgment [2025:RJ-JP:28863] (2 of 11) [CW-4561/2023] will not affect service record of accused persons, including petitioner.

2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that petitioner submitted an online application form for the post of Constable (General) (Non TSP) under General- Ex-Serviceman category against the vacancies advertised vide notification dated 29.10.2021. Petitioner, indisputably, possesses the requisite qualification. Petitioner has cleared written examination, Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and found in merit. In the final merit list dated 29.11.2022 (Ann.6), name of petitioner finds place at Serial No.92 against 94 vacancies of Constable (General). However, thereafter, vide order impugned dated 24.02.2023, candidature of petitioner came to be cancelled, apparently on account of concealment of the criminal case, referred hereinabove, and due to which, petitioner has not been selected in the final select list dated 16.01.2023 (Ann.7). In the final select list, only 52 candidates were selected to give appointment.

3. The contention of counsel for petitioner is that the concealment or non-disclosure of the factum of registering FIR No.255/1995 (criminal case No.155/1996), implicating the petitioner for offences u/s. 147, 148, 149, 323 & 324 IPC, may not be treated his deliberate or mala fide act, because such FIR was registered wayback in the year 1995, wherein after trial, petitioner was given benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Act of 1958, by the court, vide judgment dated 04.08.2007, as much as it was clearly observed therein that this judgment shall not adversely affect the service record of any of the accused, including the petitioner. It has been contended that the online [2025:RJ-JP:28863] (3 of 11) [CW-4561/2023] application form, for the present recruitment- 2021, was filled by petitioner on 26.11.2021, it means after a long lapse of about 26 years. Such a mistake occurred under bona fide belief that in the final judgment, the court has observed that same will not affect the service record of petitioner.

4. The contention of counsel for petitioner is that be that as it may, even if concealment is assumed to be deliberate on the part of petitioner, in not disclosing the factum of registration of FIR, irrespective of its final outcome, same is not that much of material significance, which may be taken so seriously/ rigidly, to reject the candidature of petitioner for appointment, moreso when petitioner has secured a merit position and possesses all other eligibility/ suitability criteria for appointment,.

5. It has been contended by counsel for petitioner that neither Circular dated 04.12.2019, issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, comes in way to deprive the petitioner to get reintegration/ resettlement in the society, after getting benefit of probation for the alleged offences, nor this aspect has been considered by the Committee, while rejecting the candidature of petitioner, vide order impugned dated 24.02.2023.

6. Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India [(2023) 12 SCC 317], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly, in respect of point of suppression of information/ providing false declaration in the verification form, has held that some suppression of material/ false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/ terminate the employee from service, rather such [2025:RJ-JP:28863] (4 of 11) [CW-4561/2023] lapse, if bona fide and not significant, may be ignored and condoned.

7. Further, counsel for petitioner has also relied upon the celebrated and oft-qutoted judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471], to contend that in a criminal case of trivial nature, in which conviction had been recorded for a petty offence, which if disclosed would not have rendered any incumbent unfit for the post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

8. In addition, reliance has also been placed by counsel for petitioner, on the judgment dated 27.03.2025 delivered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat- Jodhpur in SB Civil Writ Petition No.9517/2024: Neeraj Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan, wherein the binding effect of Circular dated

04.12.2019 issued by the State Government, was taken into consideration. The High Court opined that the Circular, virtually, is in the nature of general guidelines, to be observed by the concerned Authority. The guidelines contained in the Circular, are not to be treated so rigidly as to not even allow for the possibility that a candidate’s past, even if marred by being suspect or under trial, may be outweighed by subsequent reformation and exemplary behavior.

9. Hence, the prayer of counsel for petitioner is that since petitioner has already been found to be in merit, and was shortlisted in final merit list dated 29.11.2022, yet was not shortlisted in the final select list dated 16.01.2023, due to rejection of his candidature vide order impugned, hence, in [2025:RJ-JP:28863] (5 of 11) [CW-4561/2023] considering totality of facts and circumstances, the concealment/ false information, even if found on the part of petitioner, same is liable to be ignored/ condoned, more particularly when the criminal antecedent is of about 26 years ago, wherein finally, benefit of probation was granted to petitioner and the observations were made by the Court vide judgment dated

04.08.2007, not to affect the service record.

10. Per contra, Additional Government Counsel, appearing for respondents, has repelled the contentions of counsel for petitioner stating inter alia that the concealment/ suppression of material information should be treated as sole ground to reject the candidature of petitioner and since the present case is a clear case of concealment by petitioner of his criminal antecedent, hence the order impugned dated 24.02.2023 does not warrant any interference by this Court. In support of his submissions, Additional Government Counsel has referred and relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Parasaran Nigam Limited Vs. Anil Kanwariya [( 2021 ) 10 SCC 136 ] and the Circular dated 04.12.2019 of the State Government.

11. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of both parties as also analyzed the material available on record, in order to consider the sustainability of the order impugned.

12. The factual matrix, as noted hereinabove, is not in dispute that except concealment/ false information by the petitioner in his online application form or verification form, in respect of criminal case No.155/1996 (arising out of FIR no. 255/1995) for offences [2025:RJ-JP:28863] (6 of 11) [CW-4561/2023] u/s. 147, 148, 149, 323 & 324 IPC, respondent found the candidature of petitioner meritorious, since indisputably, petitioner possesses the requisite qualification and has cleared the written test as well as PET, thereafter his name was shortlisted in the final select list dated 29.11.2022 (Ann.6). The total vacant posts in number were 94, out of which petitioner secured his merit position at Serial No.92 in the final select list dated 29.11.2022.

13. As far as rejecting the candidature of petitioner on the ground of concealment/ false information, by placing reliance upon the Circular dated 04.12.2019 is concerned, the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in case of Neeraj Kanwar (supra), has extensively considered the nature of this Circular and its effect, in its judgment dated 27.03.2025. The Circular, as a whole has been reproduced in the judgment and then, following findings and observations have been made:- “It would be seen from the text of circular dated 04.12.2019 that the same is in the nature of general guidelines to be observed by the concerned authorities and that the ultimate decision to adjudge the suitability or unsuitability of a candidate has to be taken by the appointing authority by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. Further, it has been laid down in the circular ibid that while appointing a candidate, his character; and previous conduct are important. The result of criminal case whether conviction or acquittal - are not as much relevant as are his conduct and character. These guidelines also show that as per the Service Rules, there is no absolute or automatic disqualification for employment of a candidate even after his conviction and sentencing for criminal offences (obviously any offence, including those falling in Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita or an offence involving moral turpitude) and that on satisfying certain conditions, such candidate can also be considered for appointment. 14.1. Circular’s emphasis on individual assessment conveys, and rightly so, that it is not meant to serve as an inflexible rulebook but, rather general guidelines envisaged therein are to be borne in mind. The context Matters. Thus, the [2025:RJ-JP:28863] (7 of 11) [CW-4561/2023] ultimate decision about a candidate’s suitability must be made on a case-by-case basis. This allows the appointing authority to look at the totality of a candidate’s character and past conduct, rather than relying solely on the outcome of a criminal proceeding. 14.2. It becomes far more relevant in cases where a candidate might have a minor or isolated offence, and may even be a case of strong reformation and good conduct over time, but yet he is rejected by sheer routine mechanics. The guidelines contained in the circular are not to be treated so rigidly as to not even allow for the possibility that a candidate’s past, even if marred by being a suspect or under trial, may be outweighed by subsequent reformation and exemplary behavior. In the present case there is no other recorded criminal history other than the FIR in question, which too, seems to have arisen due to some personal dispute. More of it later.” (emphasis supplied)

14. This Court finds that in the criminal case No.155/1996 for which the allegation against the petitioner is to conceal/ suppress the factum, petitioner has been given benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Act of 1958 vide judgment dated 04.08.2007 and simultaneously, the court clearly observed in the judgment itself that this judgment will not affect the service record/ future of any of the accused, including the petitioner. As far as such finding/ observation, passed by the court in the judgment dated

04.08.2007 is concerned, same has attained finality.

15. In case of Pawan Kumar Sharma (supra), occasion to consider the issue of suppression of information/ false declaration in the verification form, came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. While dealing with this issue, Hon’ble Supreme Court, after taking into consideration the ratio decidendi expounded in case of Anil Kanwariya (supra), finally observed in Para No.13, as under:- “13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the [2025:RJ-JP:28863] (8 of 11) [CW-4561/2023] employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service Rules into consideration, regarding taking appropriate decision continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.” (emphasis supplied)

16. In an another judgment delivered in case of Umesh Chandra Yadav Vs. The Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F., Northern Railway, New Delhi [(2022) 14 SCC 244], relying upon the ratio decidendi of Avtar Singh (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Para 14 as under: “14. This cannot be disputed that the candidate who intend to participate in the selection process is required to furnish correct information relating to his character and antecedents in the verification/attestation form before or after his induction into service. At the same time, it is also true that the person who has suppressed the material information, cannot claim unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service but, at the same time, he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be exercised in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of case on hand. The yardstick which has to be applied always depends upon the nature of post, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by the competent authority considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due diligence of various aspects at the given time and no hard and fast Rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard.”

17. Taking into consideration the seriatim of facts of the case in hand, coupled with the fact that the criminal case, arising out of [2025:RJ-JP:28863] (9 of 11) [CW-4561/2023] FIR No. 255/1995 was registered near about 26 years ago, whereas vacancies were notified in year 2021, and in this criminal case, finally petitioner was given benefit of probation in judgment dated 04.08.2007 as much as the court also specifically observed in the judgment that this case would not affect the service record of petitioner, hence in the opinion of this Court it would be harsh and unjust as well as tantamount to violation of the fundamental rights of petitioner, to get opportunity of re-integration in the society, if only on account of suppression of this single past criminal case, petitioner is deprived from entering into a government job, despite being meritorious. Once the petitioner has been granted benefit of probation, law gives him an opportunity to improvise his behaviour and conduct as a civilized citizen, so as to resettle/ reintegrate in the society. Denying appointment to petitioner would certainly be against the basic object of provision of Section 4 & 12 of the Act of 1958.

18. Taking the issue into consideration in an another aspect, if petitioner would have disclosed the factum of criminal case, obviously same could not be taken to have any adverse effect on merits of his candidature to get appointment in government service, since in the judgment dated 04.08.2007, it is clearly observed that the judgment of guilt, after releasing on probation, would not affect the service record of any of the accused, including the petitioner. Section 12 of Act of 1958 is clear and specific in this regard. The nature of offences against petitioner are not heinous, but only petty offences.

19. In case of Avtar Singh (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held in Para Nos. 38.4 & 38.4.1 as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:28863] (10 of 11) [CW-4561/2023] “38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted: 38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.” (emphasis supplied)

20. Thus, in totality of facts and circumstances of present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that concealment by petitioner about his past criminal case of petty offences, which was registered about 26 years ago, may not be treated to be of so much material and significance, to cancel the candidature of petitioner and not to consider him for appointment, despite being a candidate of merit position. The merit of candidature of petitioner cannot be treated to be adversely affected by such concealment, hence same can be ignored/ condoned in the peculiar facts of the present case. Hence, petitioner is entitled to get benefit of the ratio expounded by the Apex Court in cases of Pawan Kumar Sharma (supra), Umesh Chandra Yadav (supra) & Avtar Singh (supra).

21. The upshot of discussion, made hereinabove, is that the writ petition succeeds. The order impugned dated 24.02.2023 cannot be countenanced and is hereby quashed. Since petitioner has already been found to be in merit and was shortlisted in final merit list dated 29.11.2022, respondents are directed to consider his candidature for appointment on the post of Constable (General) [2025:RJ-JP:28863] (11 of 11) [CW-4561/2023] (Non TSP) under General- Ex-Serviceman category. Needful order(s) be passed within a period of three months. It is made clear that for actual monetary benefits, petitioner shall be entitled from the date of his appointment/ joining, though for other benefits, he shall be entitled to get notionally at par with the candidates, who were shortlisted in the final merit list dated

29.11.2022 and have been finally selected in select list dated

16.01.2023 and were given appointment.

22. In the aforesaid terms, instant writ petition stands allowed.

23. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand