City, District Karauli (Raj.) v. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary

Judgment

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. The Director, Elementary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, District Karauli (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.S. Gauttam, Ms. Sakshi Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG with Mr. Hardik Singh, Mr. Rahul Gupta, Mr. Divyanshu and Mr. Vinayam Saran HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order 15/05/2025

1. Heard counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents- State Authorities and perused the material available on record.

2. In instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has raised a grievance that he applied to get appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III Level I pursuant to advertisement dated 31.12.2021 under the OBC category; he has scored 139 marks in REET Examination-2021 and as per the final [2025:RJ-JP:20606] (2 of 11) [CW-11248/2022] merit list dated 17.04.2022, candidate of OBC category, who scored 131 marks in REET Examination-2021 has been selected to consider for appointment, but candidature of petitioner has not been considered for appointment on merits. It has been pointed out that candidature of petitioner was declared “Not Eligible” at the stage of documents verification in the present recruitment process on account of facing a criminal trial of Sessions Case No.35/2019 arising out of FIR No.55/2019 registered at Police Station Hindaun, District Karauli for offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 504 & 451 IPC and Section3(1)(s) of SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.

3. Petitioner has pleaded that in the above referred criminal case, he was falsely implicated on account of having some spat with neighbor, however, later on, misunderstanding occurred between the parties has been resolved by way of compromise and the FIR along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, have been quashed by the High Court vide order dated

19.07.2022 passed in SB Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.5807/2022. Hence, the prayer of petitioner is that in view of quashing of FIR with all consequential proceedings and considering the fact that petitioner falls in merit under his category, his candidature be considered for appointment on the post in question and if he is found suitable, appointment be accorded to him with all consequential benefits.

4. Counsel for petitioner, during course of his arguments, has pointed out that as per Circular dated 04.12.2019, issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, there is a stipulation that if an aspirant is not found involved in the criminal [2025:RJ-JP:20606] (3 of 11) [CW-11248/2022] case and negative Final Report is submitted therein within a period of one year from the date of declaration of result, then candidature of that aspirant can be considered for appointment on merits. A copy of Circular dated 04.12.2019 is available on record and relevant clause of such Circular is being reproduced hereunder:- 2- ,sls izdj.k@fLFkfr;ka ftuesa vH;FkhZ dks fu;qfDr gsrq ik= ekuk tkuk pkfg,%& ¼i½ ftu vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vkijkf/kd izdj.k esa vUos"k.k esa nks"kh ugha ik;k x;k gks rFkk lacaf/kr HkrhZ esa ijh{kk ifj.kke tkjh gksus ds ,d o"kZ ds Hkhrj vUos"k.kksijkar ,Q-vkj U;k;ky; esa izLrqr dh tk pqdh gksA

5. The submission of counsel for petitioner is that since final merit list in the present recruitment process was issued on

17.04.2022 and the criminal proceedings including FIR No.55/2019 along with all consequential proceedings, have been quashed by the High Court vide Order dated 19.07.2022 i.e. within a period of one year from the date of declaration of result, hence candidature of petitioner should be ordered to be considered on merits for appointment, in terms of the guidelines, framed by the Government of Rajasthan in its Circular dated

04.12.2019.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents- State Authorities, has drawn attention of this Court to the fact that although it may be true that FIR along with all consequential proceedings against the petitioner, came to be quashed vide order dated 19.07.2022, but prior to that, criminal trial arising out of such FIR was pending before SC/ST Court, Hindaun City against the petitioner but in the online application form, filled by petitioner on 02.02.2022 for appointment on post in [2025:RJ-JP:20606] (4 of 11) [CW-11248/2022] question, he deliberately concealed this fact and in the relevant column of “Criminal Record”, petitioner indicated “No”. Thus, such concealment on the part of petitioner, of pendency of criminal trial against him, itself is suffice to reject his candidature to consider on merit, moreso when there is a clear stipulation in the advertisement itself to reject the application form of candidate on the ground of concealment of correct facts or disclosing false facts.

7. Learned Additional Advocate General has further drew attention of this Court that factum of concealment of pending criminal trial by petitioner, is an admitted fact since petitioner himself filed an affidavit dated 14.03.2022 during course of documents verification that under bonafide belief, factum of pendency of a criminal trial against him could not be mentioned in the online application form. A copy of affidavit dated 14.03.2022 filed by petitioner is an admitted document and same is available on record as part of Ann.4. The prayer of learned Additional Advocate General is that on such count alone, petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

9. Heard. Considered. The factual matrix of the present case is not in dispute that in the online application form, petitioner did not disclose the fact of pendency of criminal case against him arising out of FIR No.55/2019, but at the time of Document Verification, petitioner himself brought on record this fact that he is facing a criminal trial arising out of above numbered FIR. The genesis of such criminal case against petitioner is a quarrel between petitioner and his [2025:RJ-JP:20606] (5 of 11) [CW-11248/2022] neighbour, which ultimately has been settled down between the parties by way of compromise. In furtherance to compromise, FIR No.55/2019 itself along with all subsequent proceedings of criminal case have been quashed by the High Court vide order dated 19.07.2022. In the opinion of this Court, the effect of quashing of the FIR is that as if no such FIR was ever registered against the petitioner and petitioner must be trated as an innocent person and at least on account of registration of such FIR, the character of petitioner being a civilized person, having no involvement in any criminal case of moral turpitude, should not be doubted. Further in future, petitioner should not be penalised in any manner on account of such criminal case. Thus, after quashing of the FIR along with all consequential proceedings, the candidature of petitioner to consider for appointment in government job cannot be treated to be ineligible on the basis of mere registration of such criminal case.

10. It is noteworthy that Clause 2(i) of the Circular dated

04.12.2019, reproduced hereinabove, envisages that if any aspirant of Government job is not found guilty in a criminal case after investigation and negative final report is submitted in such criminal case, within a period of one year from the date of declaration of result, then the candidature of such aspirant can be considered on merits for appointment in the Government job. The Circular of the Government of Rajasthan is obviously in the nature of General Guidelines, to be considered by the concerned authority to adjudge the suitability or unsuitability of an aspirant for appointment in a Government job. Such Guidelines, contained in [2025:RJ-JP:20606] (6 of 11) [CW-11248/2022] the Circular should not be and cannot be treated to be so rigid and sacrosanct so as to not entertain any laxity therein.

11. In the case at hand, the final merit list was published by the respondents on 17.04.2022 and entire proceedings of criminal case, arising out of FIR No.55/2019, as much as FIR itself has been quashed by the High Court vide order dated 19.07.2022. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, after quashing of FIR, petitioner may not be presumed to be guilty of offences, under which such quashed FIR was registered. It is clear that non-guilt of petitioner has come to fore within a period of one year from the date of declaration of the result. Hence in the opinion of this Court, the candidature of petitioner at least deserves to be considered on merits for appointment on the post in question and the order declaring him "not eligible", becomes non est and unsustainable by itself.

12. As far as effect of non-disclosure of the factum of criminal case by petitioner in his online application form is concerned, Additional Advocate General has placed heavy reliance on the judgment dated 17.04.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Satyendra Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India:S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15376/2012 and contends that the concealment of a pending criminal case by petitioner, itself is sufficient to reject his application form and his candidature cannot be considered as eligible for consideration on merits. The terms and conditions, mentioned in the advertisement in respect of suppressing the correct information or disclosing false or incorrect information, which may lead to rejection of candidature of the aspirant, have also been read over before the Court. [2025:RJ-JP:20606] (7 of 11) [CW-11248/2022]

13. Before dealing with the issue of concealment of the information by petitioner of his criminal record, it would be apropos to refer the findings and observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court, passed in case of Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in [(2023) 12 SCC 317]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has followed the ratio decidendi expounded in the celebrated oft quoted case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471]. The relevant portions of judgment are being reproduced as hereunder: "11. This cannot be disputed that the candidate who intends to participate in the selection process is always required to furnish correct information relating to his character and antecedents in the verification/attestation form before and after induction into service. It is also equally true that the person who has suppressed the material information or has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority in a reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case on hand. It goes without saying that the yardstick/standard which has to be applied with regard to adjudging suitability of the incumbent always depends upon the nature of post, nature of duties, effect of suppression over suitability to be considered by the authority on due diligence of various aspects but no hard and fast Rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard. Earlier, there has been a conflict of opinion in the various decisions of 12. Division Benches of this Court and at the stage when the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition under the impugned order dated 17th November, 2015, there were divergent views of this Court and that came to be later settled by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Ors. [(2016) 8 SCC 471]. While summarizing the conclusion, this Court has laid down broad guidelines which has to be taken note of by the appointing/competent authority in dealing with the matters where there is a suppression of material information or disclosure of false information and after reconciling the earlier judgments succinctly summarized the conclusions as under: “34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects. 35. Suppression of "material" information presupposes that what is suppressed that "matters" not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be [2025:RJ-JP:20606] (8 of 11) [CW-11248/2022] dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases. 36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects. 37. The "McCarthyism" is antithesis to constitutional goal, chance of reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot be ruled out in toto nor can be generally applied but is one of the factors to be taken into consideration while exercising the power for cancelling candidature or discharging an employee from service. 38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. 38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. 38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. 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. 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. 38.6. ..................."

13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless [2025:RJ-JP:20606] (9 of 11) [CW-11248/2022] of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the 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, while taking appropriate decision regarding 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."

14. In the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of UP reported in [(2024) 5 SCC 264], the issue of non-disclosure of a criminal case by the candidate, who was an aspirant for the post of Constable, during the verification process came up for consideration and after pondering over the various judicial pronouncements in this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined as under: the nature of "32. The nature of the office, the timing and nature of the criminal case; the overall consideration of the judgment of acquittal; application/verification form; the contents of the character verification reports; the socio economic strata of the individual applying; the other antecedents of the candidate; the nature cancellation/termination order are some of the crucial aspects which should enter the judicial verdict in adjudging suitability and in determining the nature of relief to be ordered." consideration and the contents of the query

15. Thus, having guided by the principle of law expounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court referred hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that it is difficult to hold as an absolute rule of thumb that mere non-disclosure of criminal record is solely fatal in all circumstances to deny consideration of a candidate on merits for appointment in Government job, rather, it can be observed that it is within the domain and jurisdiction of the employer to look into the effect of non-disclosure of criminal record or concealment or suppression of such facts coupled with several other relevant factors, including to consider that whether non-disclosure [2025:RJ-JP:20606] (10 of 11) [CW-11248/2022] impinges the candidate from discharging his duties of the post on which he is aspirant. Thus, it is for the respondents to take a final decision on this point and to adjudge the suitability of petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III Level I.

16. This Court hope and trust that while adjudging the suitability of candidature of petitioner for appointment on the post in question, on the issue of non-disclosure of criminal case in the online application form, which ultimately has been quashed, the respondents shall certainly keep in mind the merit of petitioner that in REET-2021, the petitioner had scored 139 marks and in the final merit list, for the post in question under OBC category, the candidate who scored 131 marks in REET-2021 has been selected. Thus, obviously petitioner is more meritorious than the last selected candidate under the OBC category.

17. It would also be relevant to observe here that equity also lies in favour of petitioner since under the interim order dated

29.07.2022, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this High Court, one post under the category of petitioner has been ordered to be kept vacant to consider his candidature on merits. Thus, if the candidature of petitioner is considered on merits and he is found eligible and suitable for appointment, the appointment can be offered and accorded to him on the vacant post, without affecting appointment of any other selected candidates, who are less meritorious than the petitioner.

18. As far as judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in case of Satyendra Kumar Yadav (supra) and relied upon by Additional Advocate General is concerned, same is distinguishable on account of non-similarity of facts of the case at hand. Further, [2025:RJ-JP:20606] (11 of 11) [CW-11248/2022] the ratio decidendi on the issue of concealment of correct facts by the aspirant, particularly in respect of his criminal record as expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in celebrated judgment of Avtar Singh (supra) followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pawan Kumar (supra) and Ravnidra Kumar (supra) have not been considered by the Coordinate Bench in its judgment dated 17.04.2025.

19. The upshot of above discussion and enunciation is that the order of respondents declaring candidature of petitioner "not eligible" and not considering the candidature of petitioner on merits, for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III Level I, pursuant to Advertisement dated 31.12.2021, cannot be countenanced and same is declared as non est and unsustainable in law. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of petitioner on merits so also to adjudge his suitability for appointment on the post in question, against the vacant post, which is available, under the interim order of this Court. If petitioner is found eligible and suitable for appointment, he may be offered appointment. The decision is expected to be taken by the respondents within a period of two months.

20. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

21. No order as to costs.

22. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. RONAK JAIMAN/107-S (SUDESH BANSAL),J