1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.502/2007 Sumer Dan. vs. State of Rajasthan and others. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.502/2007 Sumer Dan. vs. State of Rajasthan and others. Date : 15.5.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.VK Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr.GR Punia, AAG, for the respondents. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was a candidate for post of Constable and his name found place in the select list. The petitioner's case was sent for police verification, then the respondents came to know that four cases were pending against the petitioner. The petitioner has been denied appointment only on the ground that four cases were pending against him. However, out of four cases, the petitioner was acquitted in two cases because of the fact that the matter was compromised between the two parties and in two 2 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.502/2007 Sumer Dan. vs. State of Rajasthan and others. cases, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 457 and 354 IPC and in another, he was convicted under Sections 377 and 511 IPC but the petitioner was given benefit of probation by specifically saying that the petitioner's said conviction will not come in the way of petitioner's claiming appointment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no rule which disentitles a person facing criminal case to get appointment on the said post and inspite of the fact that the petitioner was acquitted in two cases and has been released on probation and the Court clearly held that his conviction will not come in the way of the petitioner yet the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner only on the ground of pendency of the cases. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner gave wrong information which is clear from the document at page 47. In col.15, the petitioner was supposed to give true and correct information that whether any criminal case is registered against him or not. Against this, 3 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.502/2007 Sumer Dan. vs. State of Rajasthan and others. the petitioner clearly stated that no criminal case is pending against him. In another form which is required to be filled up by aspirant for the post, the petitioner again mentioned that no criminal case is pending against him and that verification form is at page no.49. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner's candidature was not rejected because he gave wrong information in the police verification or application form but his case was rejected only because criminal cases were pending and as such, that cannot be a ground for denial of appointment as the Rule do not provide such position. It is also submitted that the ground which is now sought to be raised was not the reason for denial of appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner was aspirant for the post of constable and he was facing trial in four criminal cases and he misled the respondents by mentioning in the application form itself that no criminal case was pending against him and further even in police verification form, he stated that no 4 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.502/2007 Sumer Dan. vs. State of Rajasthan and others. criminal case is pending. In that situation, looking to the conduct of the petitioner, even if the order passed by the respondents is on different grounds, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because of his such conduct. In view of the above, this writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya