Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |    

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

Similar News