Pranav B Prem

In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court has held that the pendency of a criminal case under Section 498A IPC cannot disqualify a candidate from being appointed to a government post. The Court directed the appointment of a petitioner to the post of Lower Division Clerk, observing that barring him solely on the ground of an unresolved criminal case violates principles of natural justice and constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21. The judgment was delivered by Justice Arun Monga in response to a writ petition filed by Amrit Pal, who had been denied appointment due to pending criminal charges stemming from a matrimonial dispute.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Amrit Pal, applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk in 2013 and successfully cleared the selection process. However, due to delays in the recruitment process, a criminal case was registered against him in 2020 under Sections 498A, 406, 323, and 494 IPC. The respondents subsequently rejected his candidature, citing a government circular dated December 4, 2019, which bars candidates with pending criminal cases from government service. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that the rejection was arbitrary and contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India.

Court's Observations

The Court found the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature to be arbitrary and devoid of proper reasoning. Key observations include:

1. The Court held that the rejection infringed on the petitioner’s right to equality and personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The denial was based solely on pending charges without considering the principle of innocence until proven guilty.

2. The respondents failed to consider the guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh, which permit appointments in cases of pending criminal trials unless the charges involve moral turpitude or a serious offense with direct relevance to the job role.

3. The Court noted that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s candidature lacked clarity and failed to explain how the pending trial impacted his suitability for the role.

4. Highlighting the matrimonial nature of the dispute, the Court observed that there was a possibility of compromise between the petitioner and his wife, making the rejection premature and unjustified.

“The action of respondents infringes upon the petitioner’s rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, denying equal treatment and personal liberty without a fair trial. Moreover, failure to apply the Supreme Court's guidelines in Avtar Singh (Supra) regarding pending criminal cases indicates nothing else but a flawed decision-making on the part of the respondents.” held the Rajasthan High Court

Relief Granted

The Court directed the respondents to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner within 30 days of the judgment. The appointment is subject to the final outcome of the pending criminal trial. The petitioner was also required to submit an undertaking that he would not claim equity in case of conviction. The Court clarified that the rejection was an arbitrary application of the circular and stated, “Pending criminal trial, unless proven guilty by way of conviction, cannot bar appointments.”

Cause Title: Amrit Pal v State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13198/2024

Date: November-27-2024

Bench: Justice Arun Monga

[Read/Download order]