Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Cancellation of Patwari Appointment Due to Criminal Convictions

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court in Jodhpur has dismissed a writ petition filed by Ramesh Kumar Meena, challenging the cancellation of his appointment as Patwari in the state’s revenue department. The order, passed on November 21, 2023, by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Mathur, upholds the decision of the respondents to cancel the petitioner’s appointment due to his previous criminal convictions.

Ramesh Kumar Meena, appointed as Patwari following an advertisement dated January 17, 2020, faced the cancellation of his appointment after police verification revealed his past convictions in two criminal cases. Despite being granted probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, his appointment was revoked based on circulars dated July 15, 2016, and December 4, 2019, issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan.

In his petition, Meena argued that mere conviction should not be grounds for disqualification, referencing the Rajasthan Revenue (Land Records, Settlement and Colonization) Subordinate Service Rules, 1970. He cited Supreme Court judgments in support of his argument. However, the respondents defended their decision, stating that the circulars from the Department of Personnel clearly outlined the ineligibility for government service for candidates with specific offenses.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Kuldeep Mathur referred to the Supreme Court guidelines in the Avtar Singh case regarding the employment of candidates with criminal antecedents. The court observed, “the action of the respondents cannot be faulted on any count,” concluding that the petitioner’s past offenses fell within the prohibited categories as per the government circulars.

This decision reaffirms the employer's right to consider the suitability of a candidate for government service based on government orders, instructions, and rules. It underscores the significance of government guidelines and circulars in determining the eligibility of candidates for public service, especially those with criminal backgrounds.

Ramesh Kumar Meena VS State of Rajasthan

Latest Legal News