1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition; and further be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 21.12.2018; and further be pleased to direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable in pursuance to his selection in the Constable recruitment-2018 with all consequential benefits.

Any other order/direction/relief which this Hon'ble Court deems proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner along with cost."

2. Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement dated 25.05.2018 was issued by the respondents holding selection for the post of Constable, pursuant to which the petitioner applied and after participating in the selection process was found to be a successful candidate. However, the respondents denied appointment to the petitioner on the ground that a criminal case for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 324, 325 & 336 of IPC was registered against him, in which after trial though he has been acquitted by the competent court of jurisdiction giving him the benefit of doubt but his acquittal is not an honourable acquittal, therefore he is not entitled for appointment and accordingly rejected his candidature vide order dated 21.12.2018.

3. Grievance of the petitioner by way of filing the present writ petition is that the criminal case in which the petitioner has been acquitted by the trial court giving him the benefit of doubt does not pertain to moral turpitude or violence against the State, which could come in his way in seeking appointment for the post in question and therefore he is entitled for appointment.

4. Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the pleadings made in the writ petition submitted that the respondents have denied appointment to the petitioner even despite having been acquitted in the criminal case registered against him which is not of the moral turpitude.

5. In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Hanuman Gurjar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.890/2019 & other connected petitions decided on 12.03.2019).

6. Counsel further submitted that the said order dated 12.03.2019 (supra) came to be challenged at the instance of the State of Rajasthan before the Division Bench of this Court by way of D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1525/2019 along with other connected appeal which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.01.2020, which was assailed by the State of Rajasthan before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP No.9425/2020 and that too was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 24.08.2020 and counsel further submitted that in this fact situation, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed and the respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioner.

7. Counsel for the respondents while opposing the writ petition submitted that although the petitioner was acquitted by the learned trial court in the alleged criminal case, which was pending against him, but the acquittal was not an honorable acquittal and therefore the respondents vide order dated 21.12.2018 rightly rejected candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable. Counsel further submitted that otherwise also since the recruitment relates to the appointment for the post of Constable and that being the disciplined security force, therefore after carefully examining the question whether in the facts and circumstances the petitioner is fit to be retained in the security forces or not, the respondents took a conscious for denial of appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable.

8. In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1334/2019 decided on 27.01.2022), where in para No.8 & 9 it has been held as under:-

"8.In the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Love Kush Meena (supra) relied upon by the learned A.A.G., the factum regarding involvement of the candidate in a criminal case was disclosed in the application form and the applicant therein had been acquitted of the charges, but despite that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court went on to hold that as the acquittal was by giving benefit of doubt, the factum thereof would not entitle the candidate for appointment.

9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the appellant herein is dis-entitled and disqualified to seek appointment on the post of Police Constable owing to his conduct as he stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 IPC, which are crimes of moral turpitude, in light of the memorandum dated 29.04.1995 issued by the Police Headquarters."

9. Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Love Kush Meena, reported in (2021) 8 SCC 774 where in paras-24, 25 & 28 it has been held as under :-

“24. Examining the controversy in the present case in the conspectus of the aforesaid legal position, what is important to note is the fact that the view of this Court has depended on the nature of offence charged and the result of the same. The mere fact of an acquittal would not suffice but rather it would depend on whether it is a clean acquittal based on total absence of evidence or in the criminal jurisprudence requiring the case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, that parameter having not been met, benefit of doubt has been granted to the Accused. No doubt, in that facts of the present case, the person who ran the tractor over the deceased lady was one of the other co-Accused but the role assigned to the others including the Respondent herein was not of a mere bystander or being present at site. The attack with knives was alleged against all the other co-Accused including the Respondent.

25. We may also notice this is a clear case where the endeavour was to settle the dispute, albeit not with the job in mind. This is obvious from the recital in the judgment of the Trial Court that the compoundable offences were first compounded during trial but since the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC could not be compounded, the Trial Court continued and qua those offences the witnesses turned hostile. We are of the view that this can hardly fall under the category of a clean acquittal and the Judge was thus right in using the terminology of benefit of doubt in respect of such acquittal.

28. We may note here that the circular dated 28.03.2017 is undoubtedly very wide in its application. It seeks to give the benefit to candidates including those acquitted by the Court by giving benefit of doubt. However, such circular has to be read in the context of the judicial pronouncements and when this Court has repeatedly opined that giving benefit of doubt would not entitle candidate for appointment, despite the circular, the impugned decision of the competent authority dated 23.05.2017 cannot be said to suffer from infirmity as being in violation of the circular when it is in conformity with the law laid down by this Court.”

10. Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Police Vs. Raj Kumar, reported in (2021) 8 SCC 347 where in paras-15, 16, 17, 31 & 32 it has been held as under :-

“15. This Court has, in the past, on several occasions, dealt with questions which are similar, if not entirely identical to what is involved in the present case, to wit, whether in the event of exoneration or acquittal of an applicant/candidate arrayed as Accused of various offences is a decisive factor for consideration of his or her suitability. Several judgments in the past had appeared to draw a distinction between "clean" acquittal of Accused individuals on the one hand and those acquitted or exonerated on account of benefit of doubt. Similarly, where candidates were charged with grave offences involving moral turpitude as well as larger outcomes were examined. Another area which engaged this Court's attention was the effect of non- disclosure of pending criminal cases. Matters came to a head when all these issues were referred to authoritative decision by a larger three judge Bench.

16. In Avtar Singh (supra), the three-judge bench, after detailed discussion of the various circumstances that arose when public authorities are called upon to deal with such cases, recorded its conclusions in the following manner:(SCC p.507,para-38)

“38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:

38.1 Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

38.2 While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.”

17. There are subsequent judgments too in this regard which have followed the ruling in Joginder Singh v. State (UT of Chandigarh: State UT of Chandigarh Vs. Pradeep Kumar & Anil Bhardwaj Vs. High Court of M.P., before proceeding to analyze the facts in each appeal, it would also be useful to reproduce the relevant extract of this Court's ruling in Mehar Singh (supra) where it was held as follows:(Mehar Singh case, SCC p.703, para-35)

“35.The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the police force is tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward manner by misusing power are in public domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police force. At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with even hand.”

31. Public service-like any other, pre- supposes that the state employer has an element of latitude or choice on who should enter its service. Norms, based on principles, govern essential aspects such as qualification, experience, age, number of attempts permitted to a candidate, etc. These, broadly constitute eligibility conditions required of each candidate or applicant aspiring to enter public service. Judicial review, under the Constitution, is permissible to ensure that those norms are fair and reasonable, and applied fairly, in a non-discriminatory manner. However, suitability is entirely different; the autonomy or choice of the public employer, is greatest, as long as the process of decision making is neither illegal, unfair, or lacking in bona fides.

32. The High Court's approach, evident from its observations about the youth and age of the candidates, appears to hint at the general acceptability of behaviour which involves petty crime or misdemeanour. The impugned order indicates a broad view, that such misdemeanour should not be taken seriously, given the age of the youth and the rural setting. This Court is of opinion that such generalizations, leading to condonation of the offender's conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided. Certain types of offences, like molestation of women, or trespass and beating up, assault, causing hurt or grievous hurt, (with or without use of weapons), of victims, in rural settings, can also be indicative of caste or hierarchy- based behaviour. Each case is to be scrutinized by the concerned public employer, through its designated officials- more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society's security.”

11. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons, firstly, it is for the employer to consider the criminal antecedents of a candidate before offering him appointment more particularly in the disciplined security forces; secondly acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case was not an honorable acquittal and the same was on the basis of benefit of doubt, therefore, in view of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Love Kush Meena and Commissioner of Police Vs. Raj Kumar (both supra), in my considered view the respondents are right in their approach in rejecting candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable and therefore in the facts and circumstances I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

13. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition stands dismissed.