Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
State Of Rajasthan vs Devraj Bairwa Son Of Shri Mangal Lal, … on 16 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:16104-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 366/2020
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Government,
School Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary To The Government, Department Of Personnel,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Secondary Education Department, Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
----Appellants
Versus
Devraj Bairwa Son Of Shri Mangal Lal, Aged About 26 Years, Resident
Of Village Chhaparwada, Post Bazed, Tehsil Talera, District Bundi.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Sharma for Mr.
Manoj Sharma, AAG
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Alankrita Sharma
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Judgment
16/04/2026
1. Instant DB Special Appeal (Writ) is filed aggrieved from
order dated 16.09.2019 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.
17622/2016 titled as “Devraj Bairwa Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.” and following directions were challenged
by appellants (non-petitioners):
“6. I have considered the submissions
and find that the petitioner has already
been acquitted of the charges/levelled
against him and one post of Lecturer
(School Education) in the subject of
Drawing is lying vacant. In view of the
honourable acquittal of the petitioner, the
order passed by the respondents-State
dated 24.11.2016 denying petitioner
appointment despite of having been duly(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 11:58:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:57:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16104-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-366/2020]selected is set aside. The respondents are
now directed to pass orders and allow the
petitioner to join duties as Lecturer
(School Education) in the subject of
Drawing and may be allotted the place of
posting according to his merit and choice.
The petitioner will also be entitled to all
consequential notional benefits.”
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant while
relying upon judgment in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs.
Methu Medha reported as AIRONLINE 2021 SC 854 has
submitted that respondent-writ petitioner has filed a writ
petition for seeking appointment on post of Lecturer (School
Education) in the subject of Drawing, which was denied by
the appellants on the ground that a criminal case under
section 307 IPC was registered against the respondent. He
further submitted that after police verification, when it has
come to the notice of appellants that a criminal case arising
out of FIR No. 161/2016 registered at PS KeshoraiPatan,
District Bundi was pending the appointment was withdrawn.
He further submitted that the appellants have relied upon
guidelines as prevalent on date of recruitment and on the
basis of guidelines, the candidature of respondent was
rejected. He also submitted that the judgment dated
27.09.2018 in Sessions Case No. 195/2017 arising out of
said FIR also indicated that the acquittal is not an honorable
acquittal, so respondent is not entitled for any relief in a writ
petition and learned Single Judge has committed serious
error while allowing the writ petition and issuing direction to
the appellants.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent-Writ
Petitioner has submitted that party has withdrawn the
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 11:58:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:57:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16104-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-366/2020]
instant case from her and now she is not representing
Respondent.
4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the material
placed on record. Also considered the judgment as referred
by learned counsel for the appellants.
5. Brief facts of the case are that the RPSC has issued an
advertisement on 16.10.2015 inviting applications for
recruitment on the post of Lecturer (School Education) for
various subjects under the Rajasthan Education Service
Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred as “Rules of 1970”). The
petitioner has also applied in drawing subject and after being
successful and securing merit at serial No. 67, the name of
petitioner was recommended by RPSC to the Director, School
Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. The Director, School
Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner has issued an appointment
order on 23.10.2016 and allocated Government Senior
Secondary School, Kethuda, District Bundi to the petitioner.
The appointment was subject to a specific condition that the
head of Institution shall allow joining to the candidate only
after receiving a report of good character from concerned
Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police,
Bundi, has sent a report on 28.10.2016 indicating that FIR
No. 161/2016 was registered at Police Station, Keshorai
Patan, District Bundi for offence under Section 147, 148,
143, 341, 323, 324, 326 & 307 IPC against the respondent-
writ petitioner.
6. The respondent-writ petitioner has filed a writ petition as he
was not allowed to join. During pendency of the writ petition,
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 11:58:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:57:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16104-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-366/2020]
a criminal case registered against the respondent (writ
petitioner), was decided on 27.09.2018 by learned Additional
Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhundi, Camp KeshoraiPatan, District
Bundi, and respondent was acquitted from the charges for
want of evidence. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ
petition and directed the appellants to issue an appointment
order.
7. In case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Methu Medha
(supra), after considering judgment in case of Deputy
Inspector General of Police and Anr. Vs. S.
Samuthiram reported as (2013) 1 SCC 598, State of
Assam and Anr. Vs. Raghava Rajgopalachari, reported
as (1972) 7 SLR 44, and Robert Stuart Vs. Emperor
reported as (1934) 61 ILR Cal 168, has referred context
of expression “honorably acquitted” after observation of Lord
Williams J. and same is reproduced as under:
“The expression “honourably acquitted”
is one which is unknown to courts of
justice. Apparently it is a form of order
used in courts martial and other extra
judicial tribunals. We said in our
judgment that we accepted the
explanation given by the Appellant
believed it to be true and considered that
it ought to have been accepted by the
Government authorities and by the
magistrate. Further we decided that the
Appellant had not misappropriated the
monies referred to in the charge. It is
thus clear that the effect of our judgment
was that the Appellant was acquitted as
fully and completely as it was possible
for him to be acquitted. Presumably, this
is equivalent to what Government
authorities term “honourably acquitted”.
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 11:58:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:57:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16104-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-366/2020]
8. After considering the judgment in case of Avtar Singh Vs.
Union of India and others reported as (2016) 8 SCC
471, State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Lavkush Meena
reported as 2021 (4) Scale 634 and Commissioner of
Police Vs. Rajkumar reported as 2021 (9) Scale 713
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Methu Medha (supra)
has observed as under:
“21. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear the
respondent who wishes to join the police
force must be a person of utmost rectitude
and have impeccable character and
integrity. A person having a criminal
antecedents would not be fit in this
category. The employer is having right to
consider the nature of acquittal or decide
until he is completely exonerated 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
and the decision of the Committee would be
final unless mala fide. In the case of
Pradeep Kumar (supra), this Court has
taken the same view, as reiterated in the
case of Mehar Singh (supra). The same
view has again been reiterated by this Court
in the case of Raj Kumar (supra).
22. As discussed hereinabove, the law is
well-settled. If a person is acquitted giving
him the benefit of doubt, from the charge of
an offence involving moral turpitude or
because the witnesses turned hostile, it
would not automatically entitle him for the
employment, that too in disciplined force.
The employer is having a right to consider
his candidature in terms of the circulars
issued by the Screening Committee. The
mere disclosure of the offences alleged and
the result of the trial is not sufficient. In the
said situation, the employer cannot be
compelled to give appointment to the
candidate. Both the Single Bench and the
Division Bench of the High Court have not
considered the said legal position, as
discussed above in the orders impugned.
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 11:58:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:57:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16104-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-366/2020]Therefore, the impugned orders passed by
the learned Single Judge of the High Court
in Writ Petition No. 3897 of 2013 and
Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1090 of
2013 are not sustainable in law, as
discussed hereinabove.”
9. A Co-ordinate Division bench of this court has also
examined these issues in case of Babbal Singh Vs. State
of Rajasthan, DB Special Appeal (writ) No. 971 of 2022
and Shaitan Lal Khurach Vs. State of Rajasthan and
Ors. and other connected matters DB Special Appeal
(writ) No. 732 of 2022, wherein it was held that the
employer is duty bound to consider candidature of an
individual who has secured acquittal in a criminal case.
10. The order of acquittal as placed on record clearly indicates
that the respondent was acquitted in clean manner and there
was no evidence in case against the respondent. Thus, the
acquittal was honorable one. The judgment in case of Union
of India and others Vs. Methu Medha (supra), as
referred by learned counsel for appellants is not applicable
on the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the
learned single judge has not committed any error while
allowing the writ petition in favor of respondent.
11. In view of discussion made herein above, the instant
DB Special Appeal (writ) is hereby dismissed with pending
applications, if any.
12. No order as to costs.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J
CHETNA BEHRANI /11
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 11:58:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:57:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
