Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal GST Officer Froze Business Accounts Without Any Legal Basis, Ignored Taxpayer for Three Months: Bombay High Court Imposes Personal Costs Weapon Recovered, But No Forensic Report, No Independent Witness — Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused

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