Candidate’s Involvement In Gambling-Related Activities Involves Moral Turpitude | Bombay HC Says Cannot Compel Consideration For Public Service
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Bombay Division Bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Manjusha Deshpande held that suppression of material information in an online application form for public employment amounts to moral turpitude and renders a candidate unfit for appointment. The Bench dismissed a petition challenging the cancellation of an appointment to the post of Clerk-Typist, upholding the employer's decision to strike the candidate's name from the select list. The Court concluded that the deliberate omission of relevant facts, particularly a previous conviction under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, breached the undertaking furnished by the candidate and justified the employer's action without the requirement of further hearing.
An advertisement, issued on 4 December 2023 through the official website of the City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay and leading newspapers, invited applications for various posts, including Clerk-Typist, under Advertisement No. CCO/01/2023. The petitioner applied online, subsequently qualifying in the written examination held on 7 February 2024, the Marathi typing test on 9 November 2024, and the English typing test on 15 November 2024. He was called for an interview on 25 November 2024 and was included in the final select list published on 11 December 2024 at serial number 141 out of 229 candidates. An appointment letter dated 21 May 2025 was issued, subject to certain stipulations, including submission of a declaration under Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Small Family Declaration) Rules, 2005, and an attestation form.
In the attestation form, the petitioner admitted to having been convicted and fined Rs. 300 under section 12A of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887. He also submitted an apology letter on 5 June 2025 requesting condonation. However, on 9 June 2025, the employer cancelled his appointment and struck his name off the select list, citing concealment of material information in the online application form.
The petitioner contended that he was a law-abiding citizen with no criminal antecedents, that the offence was petty, and that his omission in the application form was a mistake. He relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644 and Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471 to argue that youthful indiscretions and petty offences should be condoned, and that an opportunity to explain should have been afforded before cancellation.
The respondents pointed out that the online application form contained explicit questions on registration, trial, and conviction in criminal cases, to which the petitioner had answered "No" despite his prior conviction. The form included a declaration stating that any false information or concealment would result in cancellation of candidature and potential criminal proceedings. The employer argued that the suppression was deliberate and directly breached the undertaking.
The Court examined the statutory provisions, including section 12A of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, which authorises police to apprehend persons aiding or facilitating gaming through printed or published material. The punishment under section 4 includes imprisonment up to two years and fine, with no provision for compounding.
The Bench recorded that "there can be no manner of doubt that the petitioner suppressed the material information in online application and only when he was selected for the post of Clerk-Typist, he supplied correct information in the Attestation Form". The judges noted that the attestation form contained clear warnings about the consequences of furnishing false information or suppressing facts, including disqualification and termination from service.
Quoting from Avtar Singh, the Court referred to paragraph 38.4.1 stating that in trivial cases, suppression could be condoned at the employer's discretion, but also to paragraph 38.1 which requires that "information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest... must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention".
The Court stated: "When a candidate initially suppresses the material facts and obtains the appointment fraudulently then it is a case of trustworthiness, reliability and credibility of such a candidate." It held that the employer may have declined appointment had the conviction been disclosed at the outset.
On the nature of the offence, the Court observed that "the involvement of the petitioner in the activity associated with gambling certainly pertains to moral turpitude and the writ Court shall have no jurisdiction to direct the employer to take the person like the petitioner in employment". It further recorded that the presence of such a person in the judiciary establishment "would seriously challenge the confidence of the litigants and the members of the Bar".
Addressing the petitioner's reliance on Sandeep Kumar, the Court distinguished that case as involving a 20-year-old candidate, whereas the petitioner here was 31 years old and "quite mature and it must be inferred that he understood the consequences of not filling up correct information".
The Court concluded that there was no violation of natural justice, as the petitioner was bound by the undertakings and stipulations he accepted.
The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition. It held that the communication dated 9 June 2025 cancelling the petitioner's candidature and striking his name from the select list was valid. The Court stated that "the ultimate decision of the appointing authority cannot be faulted on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given" and that the petitioner could not "turn around and complain of violation of natural justice" after submitting false information in the application.
It recorded that "the petitioner... rendered himself unfit for employment" and that the employer's choice not to engage him was lawful and within its discretion, given the nature of the offence and the deliberate suppression.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kurle with Mr. Vikas Pawar, Ms. Sonal Manchekar and Mr. Jayendra Manchekar, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. P.P. Kakade, Additional Government Pleader with Ms. Nisha Mehra, Assistant Government Pleader
Case Title: Jayesh Bandu Limje v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:34365-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 10460 of 2025
Bench: Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Justice Manjusha Deshpande
