CW 5521/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.5521/2006 Nand Kishore Versus State & (3)Ors. Date of Order ::: 03/09/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. GP Kaushik, for petitioner Mr. JK Agrawal, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents. Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that despite being finally selected for the post of Police constable for district Karauli, petitioner has been arbitrarily deprived from appointment. Petitioner is ex-serviceman having rendered more than 17 years' service in Indian army, applied for the post of Constable against vacancy reserved for Ex-serviceman and advertised in 2005 – in pursuance whereof, appeared in written examination held on 10/10/05 – as per result declared on 10/03/2006, he qualified therein; as such was called for physical test & interview; and final select list containing name of petitioner was declared by respondent on 22/03/06 (Ann.4) but he was not given appointment; so legal notice was served upon respondents – in response whereof, his Counsel was informed vide letter dt.12/06/06 that since FIR-132/05 was registered at PS Kudgaon (Karauli) for offences U/Ss 323, 341, 504, IPC for alleged CW 5521/06 //2// incident of 26/10/05 though he might have been acquitted by competent court of jurisdiction, it was sufficient to deny appointment to him. Counsel for petitioner submits that U/r 13 of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (“Rules, 1989”) even a convict by court of law, will not be deprived from consideration for appointment whereas in the instant petition, there is no concealment on the part of petitioner since for alleged incident of 26/10/05, FIR was registered on 28/10/05 which culminated into acquittal by competent court of law vide judgment dt.15/05/06 (Ann.8) while written examination was held on 10/10/05; and that apart, once there was an order of acquittal by competent court of law, in view of R.13 of Rules, 1989, he could not have been deprived from consideration of his appointment particularly when he has been finally selected. In support, Counsel placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in Rohitash Kumar Vs. State (CWP-6219/06 decided on 10/04/07). In reply, respondent have inter-alia averred that petitioner concealed material fact while applying for the post of Constable more particularly in para 17 of application form about the fact that he was facing criminal trial in FIR lodged against him and accordingly he has rightly been denied consideration for appointment. CW 5521/06 //3// I have considered contentions of both the parties and examined material on record. In the facts (supra), there is no concealment of material fact on the part of petitioner since FIR, itself, was registered on 28/10/05 for alleged incident of 26/10/05 while written examination was held by respondents on 10/10/05 as is evident from Ann.2. Very premise on which appointment has been denied is not factually correct based on material on record and that apart, petitioner has already been acquitted by competent court of jurisdiction vide judgment dt. 15/05/06 (Ann.8) and taking note of R.13 of Rules, 1989, he could not have been denied consideration for appointment in the facts of the case. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Rejection of candidature for consideration of his appointment as communicated vide letter dt.12/06/06 (Ann.6) by Superintendent of Police, Karauli is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider case of petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable as applied for district Karauli and compliance whereof be made by passing necessary orders within two months. However, petitioner will be entitled to consequential benefits including notional fixation, seniority etc., except salary for intervening period during which he has not worked. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.3/5521CW06-0309All.doc