Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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