[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 889 of 2001 AKHILESH KUMAR MEENA V/S STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. Date of Judgment : May 08, 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. Mr. RK SONI FOR IR CHOUDHARY, for the appellant Mr. BL BHATI, ADDL. GOVT. COUNSEL, for the respondent BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE GUPTA, J.): This appeal has been filed by the appellant, against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 01.10.2001, dismissing the writ petition, and upholding refusal to give appointment to the petitioner. The necessary facts are, that the petitioner applied for appointment as Teacher, in response to Advertisement, wherein he was selected, however, he was not allowed to join. The petitioner filed the writ petition, alleging that after due process of selection, appointment order was issued and the petitioner produced medical certificate and character certificates, and when the petitioner submitted these [2] documents, the certificate issued by the Collector did mention the pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner for the offence under Sec.147, 447, 323 IPC. In that view of the matter, the petitioner was not allowed to join. The petitioner, in these circumstances prayed, that respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to join on the post on which he was selected and appointed. The learned Single Judge noticed the contention, that the charges against the petitioner are not such, which can be termed as an offence involving moral turpitude, and therefore appointment could not have been denied. The learned Single Judge has observed, that a distinction has to be made between stage, before any relationship of employer and employee is established, and a stage after such relationship is entered, in the former case parties are at the threshold of entering into relationship, with certain rights and obligations emanating from such relationship, and if there is anything which affects the mind of the employer about the suitability of the man to be placed on an establishment, it is open for such authority, on such ground, not to offer any appointment, and not to create right and obligations in favour of the prospective incumbent. Interalia with this, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere in favour of the petitioner. Since the character Certificate Annex.3 is as old as dated 06.03.2001, and the criminal case mentioned [3] to be pending was of the year 1996, when the matter came up before this Court on 14.01.2008, the learned counsel for the appellant was directed to inform the Court, as to what has been the out come of the criminal case, on account of which he was not allowed to join. Today, it is informed by the learned counsel, that the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sec.147, 323 and 149 IPC by the criminal Court, vide order dated 13.12.2002, ofcourse, he has been released on probation. This conviction has not been appealed by the appellant further, and has acquired finality. In our view, when the character of the petitioner has not been testified by the Collector, and as of now, the petitioner has been convicted, which conviction has acquired finality as well, the petitioner cannot be given any relief. We are satisfied with the reasonings given by the learned Single Judge, about the two stages, i.e. the stage before any relationship of employer and employee is established, and the stage after such relationship is entered. In that view of the matter, we do not find any force in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. (KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. jpa/