SBCWP NO.3803/04 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3803/2004. Meva Lal Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order:- January 20, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Mahendra Singh Gurjar for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Gupta, Additional Government Counsel. Ms. Rekha Arora for the respondents. **** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming appointment on the post of Class-IV employee pursuant to the advertisement No.1/94. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has come in the category of OBC at Sr.No.11 therefore he may be given appointment. State Government has filed reply to the writ petition wherein they specifically contended that B.Ed. degree of the petitioner submitted by the petitioner, was subsequently found to be forged. Respondent-State that submitted that no writ of mandamus can be issued as prayed for. SBCWP NO.3803/04 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has rejoined and submitted that stand of the State Government cannot be accepted in the face of acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case wherein it has not been proved that the degree is forged. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the criminal court showing that there was no proper enquiry and it could not be proved before the trial court that the petitioner forged the degree. In fact, in the trial court, it has come in evidence that Controller of Examination, Magad University, State of Bihar vide communication dated 26/8/1995 pursuant to the letter issued by the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Tonk concluded that the degree produced by the petitioner was forged. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the petitioner has been acquitted of the charge therefore merely because the examination controller has submitted some erroneous report, appointment cannot be denied to the petitioner. It is argued that judgment of acquittal of the petitioner has attained finality and in the face of this, stand of the respondents that the degree was forged, cannot be accepted. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find that although the trial court acquitted the petitioner but that was on the basis of the fact that prosecution was SBCWP NO.3803/04 3 not able to prove the charge of forgery against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Obviously, prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the petitioner as per the desired standard of proof for the criminal trial. Trial court therefore gave the benefit of doubt to the petitioner and on that basis acquitted him. When the respondent has taken a stand that the degree produced by the petitioner is not genuine, therefore for issuance of mandamus, it is not required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the stand of the respondents has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The respondent has categorically stated in their counter affidavit that they verified from the Controller of Examination, Magad University, State of Bihar who sent a letter stating therein that the B.Ed. degree was not correct one and on that basis it is stated that the degree was forged. In such an event, writ of mandamus cannot be issued by this court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil