Acquittal by Benefit of Doubt in Impersonation and Extortion Cases Does Not Entitle Candidate to Public Employment, Rules Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition by a candidate denied appointment as Naib-Tehsildar, holding that acquittals by benefit of doubt in two impersonation-and-extortion cases were not honourable and did not compel the State to grant her appointment.
The Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, has dismissed a writ petition filed by Sarita Meena, a candidate who cleared both the written examination and interview for the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination-2021 but was denied appointment as Naib-Tehsildar. Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, sitting singly, found that the petitioner faced two criminal cases involving impersonation of a public servant and extortion, and that her acquittals in both were recorded only by extending the benefit of doubt. The court held that such acquittals do not automatically entitle a candidate to public employment, and that the suitability of each candidate must be assessed on the specific facts and nature of the allegations against them.
The Dispute Before the High Court
Sarita Meena, a resident of Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk, applied pursuant to an advertisement dated 20 July 2021 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) for selection to various posts in Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services. She qualified in the written examination and was called for interview. Despite holding merit position No. 2116 in the Scheduled Tribes Woman Widow category, she was not given an appointment order. Instead, Pooja Kumari (Merit No. 2123) was appointed in the same category vide order dated 25 May 2024.
Through an RTI inquiry, Sarita Meena learnt that her candidature had been rejected on account of two criminal cases registered against her. She challenged the Committee's decision dated 16 March 2024 before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of that decision and a direction to consider her candidature for appointment.
The Criminal Cases and Their Outcome
The court examined the record of both criminal cases in detail. The first, FIR No. 84/2015 registered at PS Tidi, District Udaipur, resulted in criminal case No. 754/2015. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udaipur, vide judgment dated 25 January 2023, acquitted the petitioner of charges under Sections 384 and 170 of the IPC by extending the benefit of doubt. The evidence indicated a complaint of impersonation of a public servant with the motive of extorting money from the complainant.
The second, FIR No. 645/2015 registered at PS Behror, District Alwar, resulted in criminal case No. 89/2017. Vide order dated 18 December 2023, the petitioner was acquitted of the charge under Section 420 IPC by way of compromise, and of charges under Sections 382, 170 and 120B IPC by extending the benefit of doubt. The court noted that the material on record showed that after impersonating an Income Tax Officer, the accused had extorted Rs. 3,50,000 from the complainant, and that prosecution witness PW1 Virendra had named the petitioner as one of the accused who took that money.
The court observed that in neither case was it recorded that the petitioner had been falsely implicated by the victim or by the police. Both cases were of an identical nature — impersonation of a public servant to extort money from innocent victims.
Arguments on Both Sides
Counsel for the petitioner relied on a DOP circular dated 4 December 2019 and a series of coordinate bench decisions of the Rajasthan High Court. These included the decision in Krishan Gopal Sharma v. The General Manager, UCO Bank and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2106/2021, decided 9 May 2025), the order dated 18 November 2024 in Shankar Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 756/2022), and the judgment dated 27 March 2025 in Neeraj Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan and Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 951/2024). Counsel also cited the Division Bench decision in Shaitan Lal Kurach v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 732/2022, decided 29 August 2025), where appointment was directed even for a constable post despite a pending criminal case. The argument was that the petitioner had been acquitted in both cases and no criminal case was pending against her.
Counsel for the respondents countered that both acquittals were by benefit of doubt, not honourable acquittals, and that the nature of the offences — impersonation and extortion — reflected on the petitioner's character and integrity. Reliance was placed on three Supreme Court decisions: State of Rajasthan and Others v. Love Kush Meena (2021) 8 SCC 774, Commissioner of Police v. Rajkumar (2021) 8 SCC 347, and Union of India and Others v. Methu Meda (Civil Appeal No. 6238/2021), all of which held that a person seeking appointment to a public post must be of utmost rectitude with impeccable character and integrity, and that the employer has the right to consider the nature of the acquittal.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Jain accepted the general proposition that employment is a source of livelihood and that denial of employment can implicate Article 21 of the Constitution. He also accepted that a candidate cannot be denied public employment solely on account of a petty criminal case or an acquittal in a petty criminal case. However, the court held that the suitability of the individual must be examined considering the overall facts and circumstances of each case, and that no straight-jacket formula can be applied.
The court drew on the Division Bench's analysis in Shaitan Lal Kurach, which had itself considered Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 and Ravindra Kumar v. State of UP (2024) 5 SCC 264, and held that where an order of acquittal has been recorded, the employer is required to consider all relevant facts about the antecedents, taking a holistic view based on objective criteria. Each case depends on its own facts.
Applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Methu Meda, the court quoted the holding that acquittal by benefit of doubt from a charge involving moral turpitude, or because witnesses turned hostile, “would not automatically entitle him for the employment, that too in disciplined force.” The employer retains the right to consider the candidature in terms of the circulars issued by the Screening Committee, and cannot be compelled to grant appointment merely because the candidate disclosed the offences and their outcome.
The court also examined the DOP circular dated 4 December 2019, which itself referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar (1996) 11 SCC 605 and required each case to be considered on its own merits.
On the facts, the court found the charges against the petitioner to be serious. Both FIRs involved impersonation of a public servant — in one case as an Income Tax Officer — combined with extortion of money from victims. The court drew a parallel with the contemporary phenomenon of “digital arrest,” where individuals impersonate public servants using online means to extort money. The court found that the acquittals were not honourable: in one case the acquittal was by benefit of doubt, and in the other it was partly by compromise and partly by benefit of doubt, with prosecution evidence on record naming the petitioner. The court noted that nowhere in the judgments was it recorded that the petitioner had been falsely implicated.
On this basis, the court distinguished all the coordinate bench decisions cited by the petitioner's counsel. It held that those decisions did not assist the petitioner because the facts and nature of the criminal cases in the present matter were materially different. The petitioner had failed to make out a case for interference under Article 226.
Outcome
Justice Ashok Kumar Jain dismissed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13213/2024 on 25 February 2026. The Committee's decision dated 16 March 2024 rejecting the petitioner's candidature was upheld. Any miscellaneous application filed in the matter was also dismissed.