Photo: TrendSPLEND via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Judgment Intelligence
Petition AllowedLal Chand v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
2026:RJ-JD:23908
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19314/2023
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 18 May 2026
- Bench
- Justice Arun Monga
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Circular dated 04.12.2019 on character verification — clauses 1(i), 2(i); Constitution of India — Article 14
Final Outcome
Petition allowed. The petitioner's candidature must be considered within three months and, if he is otherwise fit and eligible, he must get the benefit of his selection, against a future vacancy if none exists now; no back pay for the period out of service (paras 20-22).
Key holdings
- A mere FIR is an allegation; one negatived on investigation carries no adverse consequence (para 11).
- Denying appointment because of another person’s false complaint offends Article 14 (para 12).
- Clause 1(i) of the 2019 circular applies only to a live accusation or a conviction (para 14).
- A candidate cleared by a final report within one year of the result is eligible under clause 2(i) (paras 15, 19).
- Character and antecedents, not the mere registration of a case, govern suitability (paras 16-17).
Brief Facts
The petitioner was selected as a Physical Training Instructor Grade-III in a 2022 recruitment and appointed by an order of 29.09.2023 (para 3). After the result, an FIR alleging a sexual offence and an offence under the SC/ST Act was registered against him, and he was not allowed to join (para 3). On 28.11.2023 the police filed a negative final report, finding the complaint false and lodged out of rivalry (paras 3, 9). The State still refused to let him join, relying on its circular of 04.12.2019 on character verification (paras 3, 6).
Court's Findings
The State did not controvert the negative final report (para 9). An FIR is at best an allegation, and one negatived on investigation carries no legal consequence; otherwise a candidate's career would be at the mercy of any false complainant (paras 10-11). Penalising a candidate for another's wrong offends the fairness inherent in Article 14 (para 12). The circular's two limbs must be read together (para 13). Clause 1(i) disqualifies only where a case is under investigation or trial or has ended in conviction, so it does not reach a case closed by a negative final report (para 14). Clause 2(i) expressly makes eligible candidates cleared by a final report filed within one year of the result, and the petitioner stood even better than an acquitted candidate (para 15). Relying on Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar, the Court said character and antecedents, not the bare registration of a case, are what matter (paras 16-17). The final report came well within a year of the result (para 19).
Legal Principle
An FIR that the police later close by a negative final report cannot disqualify a selected candidate. Under the Rajasthan circular of 04.12.2019, clause 1(i) ineligibility needs a pending investigation, trial or conviction, while clause 2(i) makes eligible a candidate exonerated by a final report filed within a year of the result (paras 14-15, 18-19).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar 1996(11) SCC 605
What matters for appointment is the character and antecedents of the candidate, judged by the appointing authority on the facts, not the bare result of a criminal case.
