“Denial of Appointment for Pending Case Without Moral Turpitude Is Arbitrary”: Rajasthan HC Backs Widow RAS Aspirant, Says “Mere FIR Doesn’t Tarnish Character”
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga allowed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to issue a formal appointment order to a selected candidate for the Rajasthan Administrative Service. The petitioner’s appointment had been withheld on account of an FIR lodged by her estranged husband, despite her disclosure of the same during character verification. The Court held that in the absence of offences involving moral turpitude, disqualification solely based on the pendency of criminal proceedings was untenable. The Court directed the respondents to treat her provisional appointment as final, subject to the outcome of the trial.
The petitioner, a widow, applied for the Rajasthan Administrative and Subordinate Services Examination pursuant to an advertisement issued on 20 July 2021. She cleared the preliminary and main written examinations, and appeared for the interview conducted on 9 October 2023. Her name appeared in the final selection list, and she was directed to appear before the Medical Board on 25 January 2024.
Despite ranking above several other selected candidates who were subsequently appointed, the petitioner was not issued an appointment letter. She was orally informed that her appointment had been withheld due to a pending criminal case based on an FIR registered by her deceased husband on 4 September 2020 under Sections 452, 341, 323, and 143 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. A final report dated 12 February 2021 was filed under Sections 323, 341, and 451 read with Section 34 IPC; charges under the Arms Act were dropped.
The petitioner, in response to this, pointed out that the FIR stemmed from a matrimonial dispute and was followed by counter-allegations in an FIR filed by her against her husband in 2021 under various sections including 498A IPC. She contended that the pending case was trivial in nature and did not involve moral turpitude. Further, she submitted that she had made a full and truthful disclosure of the pending case during the recruitment process.
The respondents, including the State of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, argued that the petitioner was ineligible for appointment due to the pending trial, in accordance with the Circular dated 4 December 2019 issued by the Department of Personnel. They relied on Condition No. 15 of the advertisement which mandated that candidates under trial would be deemed ineligible for appointment.
Justice Arun Monga recorded that the petitioner had participated in the entire selection process and disclosed the pendency of the case. The Court noted:
“The petitioner was issued the admit card, she struggled and worked very hard preparing for the competitive written examination followed by interview, achieved position of merit and also stood selected and the respondents also got her medically examined.”
The Court noted that respondents had not raised any objections to her eligibility during the recruitment process. On the issue of eligibility, the Court recorded:
“Relevant part of condition no.15 of the advertisement dated 20.07.2021 relied upon by the learned senior counsel for respondents is that if any criminal case against the candidate was under trial in the court, he/she would be ineligible for appointment.”
However, it found such a blanket disqualification clause to be legally untenable:
“This being the position, I am of the opinion that the part of condition no. 15 of the advertisement dated 20.07.2021... is untenable in law. It was wrongly inserted in the advertisement by the respondents and ought to be ignored.”
Addressing the petitioner's FIR, the Court stated:
“The FIR had emanated from the matrimonial discord between the petitioner and her husband (since deceased). The offences in the FIR do not involve moral turpitude.”
The Court further stated:
“The role attributed to the petitioner is not of such a nature so as to impinge on the nature of duties to be performed by her upon appointment.”
The Court referred to the landmark Supreme Court decision in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, which allows employers discretion in such cases but mandates an objective assessment. It observed:
“In case when facts have been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, the employer in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to the decision of such case.”
The Court criticised the mechanical application of the Circular dated 04.12.2019, stating:
“It transpires that screening committee has not taken any independent view by applying objective thinking other than a mechanical outcome... which states that offences following under Chapter XVI & XVII of the IPC dis-entitle a candidate.”
On the importance of fairness and proportionality, the Court noted:
“The principle of proportionality must be kept in mind... minor indiscretions should not be equated with serious crimes.”
“There is no gainsaying to observe that mere registration of an FIR does not reduce a citizen to the status of either a convict or not having a good character.”
The Court issued the following final directions:
“As an upshot, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to make the appointment of the petitioner pursuant to interim order dated 23.07.2024 as absolute in accordance with her merit and category, subject, of course, to the outcome of the pending criminal case, and also furnishing an undertaking on an affidavit by the petitioner that she shall not claim any special equity by virtue of her having joined on the post in question in case of her conviction in the pending criminal trial.”
Further, the Court directed:
“Needless to say, if the petitioner is acquitted or discharged in the said case, there shall be no impediment in granting her all consequential benefits.”
The writ petition was allowed and all pending applications stood disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anand Purohit, Senior Advocate, Mr. Mayank Roy, Mr. Sameer Pareek and Mr. Vishal Singhal. Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Senior Advocate-cum-AAG, Ms. Meenal Singhvi, Advocates.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:13298
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9517/2024
Bench: Justice Arun Monga
[Read/Download order]
