Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed an appeal by a public authority and upheld directions to proceed with the appointment of a selected candidate for a public post. The dispute arose after the authority cancelled the appointment offer during verification, citing the candidate’s prior conviction in a matrimonial-cruelty and breach-of-trust case, even though he had disclosed the case and an appellate court had released him on probation. The Bench held that when a person is dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act, Section 12 removes the employment-related disqualification flowing from the conviction, while the conviction itself continues to stand.

The appeal arose from cancellation of an offer of appointment issued by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) to the respondent for the post of Junior Executive (Common Cadre). The respondent had earlier been convicted under Sections 498A and 406 IPC pursuant to an FIR registered on the complaint of his wife. He was sentenced to simple imprisonment and fine. In appeal, while the conviction was upheld, the Appellate Court granted him release on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Also Read: Post-Award Property Purchasers Cannot Resist Execution Of Arbitral Award: Supreme Court Upholds Attachment Of Transferred Immovable Property And Dismisses Transferee’s Appeal

Subsequently, he was selected by AAI and disclosed his conviction and release on probation in the attestation form. His appointment was cancelled on the ground that Regulation 6(7)(b) of the Airports Authority of India (General Conditions of Service and Remuneration of Employees) Regulations, 2003 rendered persons convicted of offences involving moral turpitude ineligible for appointment. The respondent challenged the cancellation. The Single Judge quashed the cancellation and directed appointment, holding that Section 12 of the Act, 1958 removed the disqualification attached to conviction. The present intra-court appeal was filed by the Union of India and AAI against that decision.

The Court observed, “facts of this case are not in dispute.” It recorded that the respondent had made all disclosures, including disclosure of his conviction and release under Section 4 of the Act, 1958. The Bench framed the issue as “whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Section 12 of the Act, 1958” and whether the ineligibility under Regulation 6(7)(b) was attached to his conviction.

Quoting Section 12, the Court noted: “a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law.” Referring to Regulation 6(7)(b), it reproduced: “Persons convicted of offences involving moral turpitude… should be deemed to be ineligible for appointment in the Authority.”

Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Shankar Dass v. Union of India, the Court quoted: “The order of dismissal from service consequent upon a conviction is not a ‘disqualification’ within the meaning of Section 12.” It further recorded: “That is the sense in which the word ‘disqualification’ is used in Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act.”

The Bench observed that the ineligibility under Regulation 6(7)(b) “flows from conviction of the person seeking appointment” and that such ineligibility “is attached to his conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude.” It concluded that since the respondent was held ineligible only on account of his conviction and had been granted benefit under Section 4, “the respondent is entitled to protection of Section 12 of the Act, 1958 and he cannot be made to suffer such disqualification attached to his conviction.”

Citing Bakshi Ram, the Court quoted: “the offender ‘shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law’.” It further recorded: “if a law provides for disqualification of a person for being appointed in any office… that disqualification by virtue of Section 12 stands removed.”

The Court clarified: “it does not mean… that the conviction of the respondent… stands washed off.” It held that removal of disqualification meant that a candidate released on probation “would not suffer such disqualification or ineligibility for appointment.”

Also Read: Criminal Law Cannot Hold A “Ghost” Responsible, Identity Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt; Delhi HC Acquits Robbery Convict After Two Decades As Identity Remains Doubtful

The Court recorded that it was “not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, the appeal along with pending applications is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Ms. Akansha Choudhary and Ms. Shreya Manjari, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. N.L. Bareja and Mr. Saqib, Advocates

Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Rajesh

Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:572-DB

Case Number: LPA 10/2026

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice Tejas Karia