Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

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