Anil Kumar Goyal vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Dinesh Mehta, J

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.07.2022 (Annexure.15), issued by the Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand, whereby his selection has been canceled on the ground that he has been found unfit for appointment in terms of para No.2 of notification dated 02.03.2020.

The facts germane for the present purposes are that the petitioner vied for the post of Constable pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 04.12.2019 (Annexure.3). The petitioner appeared for Physical Efficiency Test and was duly selected, whereafter he was called for document verification by press note dated 12.04.2022. The petitioner had appeared for document verification on 18.04.2022, but his name did not find mention in the final select list dated 31.05.2022, issued by the respondents.

Meanwhile, an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner on 30.06.2020 (being FIR No.165/2020), at Police Station Ratanada, District Jodhpur City (East) for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 354(a), 354(b), 354(c), 452, 506 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).

During the course of petitioner’s character verification, it has come to the notice of the respondents that the above referred FIR has been registered against him and therefore, the impugned order dated 05.07.2022 came to be issued by the respondents.

Mr. Kailash Jangid, learned counsel for the petitioner while highlighting that the recruitment was initiated on 04.12.2019 argued that the notification dated 02.03.2020 whereby Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1989’) have been amended and Rule 13 has been substituted, cannot be applied retrospectively.

In support of his contention aforesaid, learned counsel relied upon judgment dated 09.12.2021 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sajjana Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10818/2021, which has been affirmed by Division Bench of this Court by a reportable judgment dated 12.07.2022 passed in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Sajjana. He prayed that the present writ petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to accord appointment to the petitioner.

Mr. S.R.Paliwal, associate to Mr. B.L.Bhati, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State argued that petitioner’s involvement in serious criminal offences disentitles him to claim public employment and when it comes to appointment in disciplined force like the Police, the aspect of criminal antecedents has to be considered with more gravity and caution and no right to be appointed can be claimed by the petitioner.

It was argued that as the FIR in question came to be lodged on 30.06.2020, i.e. after the promulgation of the notification dated 02.03.2020, by which Rules of 1989 have been amended, the respondents were justified in rejecting petitioner’s candidature.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

The case of the petitioner appears to be squarely covered by the judgment dated 09.12.2021, passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sajjana (supra).

So far as the argument advanced by Mr. Paliwal that the respondents were justified in canceling petitioner’s appointment since the FIR was registered on 30.06.2020, i.e. after the notification dated 02.03.2020 was brought into force is concerned, the same appears to be attractive on first flush, but a deeper scrutiny, suggests that the same hardly cuts any ice.

The principle that the eligibility of a candidate has to be adjudged as on the last date of filing of the application form and on the basis of the law prevailing on such date, is well settled. In the opinion of this Court, the fact that FIR came to be registered on 30.06.2020 hardly has any bearing in light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sajjana (supra). Maybe while adjudging suitability, the FIR in question can be considered, but the same has to be tested on the touchstone of the law prevailing on the date of advertisement (i.e. unamend Rules of 1989).

The writ petition is, therefore, allowed.

The impugned order dated 05.07.2022 (Annexure.15) which is based upon the notification dated 02.03.2020 is, hereby quashed and set aside.

The respondents are directed to consider petitioner’s eligibility/entitlement afresh in light of the law/circular which was prevailing prior to amendment of the Rules of 1989. In other words, the respondents shall consider petitioner’s eligibility in terms of the circular dated 04.12.2019.

Necessary exercise be done within a period of eight weeks from today and if the petitioner is found eligible, appointment be accorded to him, giving notional benefits from the date when persons less meritorious than him have been given appointment.

The petitioner shall be free to file a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand along with all requisite documents, including judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court and Rajasthan High Court and order of acquittal dated 20.04.2022 passed by the learned trial Court. It will be enjoined upon the competent authority to consider the effect of petitioner’s acquittal in accordance with law, including the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in this regard.

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.