Rajasthan High Court Orders Woman’s Appointment To Rajasthan Administrative Service; Holds FIR Due To Matrimonial Discord Does Not Affect Suitability For Role
The Court said that the offences listed in the FIR did not constitute moral turpitude and that the petitioner’s role was not such that it would impact the responsibilities she would carry out if appointed.
Justice Arun Monga, Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court held that denial of appointment to a candidate solely on the ground of a pending criminal case arising from matrimonial discord and not involving moral turpitude was arbitrary and unsustainable.
A Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga observed, “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. Every citizen is presumed innocent unless proved guilty. In the case in hand it so transpires that the alleged role attributable to the Petitioner is not of such a nature so as to either impinge on the nature of duties to be performed by him or otherwise, even bordering moral turpitude.”
The Court clarified, “…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 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 Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Anand Purohit, while Additional Advocate General Rajesh Panwar appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner, a widow, whose marriage with her deceased husband had irretrievably broken down, resulting in matrimonial acrimony and collateral criminal proceedings, aspired to be an officer in the Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS). The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) had issued an advertisement for recruitment to Rajasthan State Administrative and Subordinate Services. The Petitioner had applied, qualified for the preliminary examination, cleared the combined written examination, and appeared for the interview. She was declared successful as per the select list and was asked to appear before the Medical Board. Appointment letters were issued to other selected candidates with lower merit, but the Petitioner was denied appointment.
Upon inquiry, she was orally informed that her appointment was withheld due to an FIR lodged by her husband. Despite multiple requests, no written reason was provided.
The Petitioner had contended that the FIR, stemming from a matrimonial dispute, was based on false allegations, the offences were trivial and did not involve moral turpitude. She had disclosed the case truthfully, hence, the refusal of appointment due to the pending trial was unjustified and illegal.
The Respondents contended that, as per the Circular dated December 4, 2019, and condition No.15 of the advertisement, in view of the pending criminal trial, the Petitioner was deemed ineligible. Condition No.15 required a character certificate with no offence charged, and stated that if any case was under trial, the candidate would be ineligible.
During the pendency of the writ petition, vide an interim order, the Court had granted protection, noting that the Petitioner had cleared the selection process and was denied appointment due to the pendency of a criminal case. The Court observed that the FIR, lodged by her husband due to marital discord, could not be a ground to deny appointment, and Respondents were directed to issue appointment order to the Petitioner as per her merit and send her for training.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted that Petitioner had truthfully disclosed in her application the facts regarding the pendency of the criminal case against her, which was duly entertained by the competent authorities, after which the Petitioner was issued the admit card. “All along, the Respondents did not raise any objection whatsoever to the Petitioner’s eligibility and suitability for appointment. Persons with lower merit than her’s had been appointed. Yet the Petitioner was denied the appointment and orally informed that her appointment had been withheld due to a complaint made by her husband regarding a pending criminal case against her", the Court added.
The Court observed that the condition that said that if any criminal case against the candidate was under trial in court, she would be ineligible for appointment, was not backed by any prescription under the relevant statutory recruitment rules, and the Respondents had failed to show any such provision for automatic ineligibility.
The Bench stated, “Settled law of the land is that 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 and that though it is open to the employer to adjudge antecedents of the candidate, but ultimate action should be based on objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects.”
The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2016), where it was held that though it was open to the employer to adjudge antecedents of the candidate, ultimate action should be based on objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects and that 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 observed, “In the Petitioner’s case, the offences under Sections 452, 341, 323, and 143 IPC, arising from a matrimonial dispute, do not prima facie reflect a character flaw that would render her unfit for the RAS post, warranting such a contextual evaluation as to attract a rigid application of the Circular.”
The Court further noted that it was neither pleaded nor shown on the record that the competent authority had, on objective criteria, duly considered the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of duties and status of the post, as also the circumstances of the offence, and then decided on merits that the Petitioner was unsuitable for the appointment.
The Bench concluded, “A punitive approach that permanently brands young individuals as criminals for relatively minor mistakes contradicts the principles of justice/fairness, recidivism and reformation and reintegration into society.”
The Court held that the denial of appointment to the Petitioner solely on the ground of a pending criminal case, which did not involve moral turpitude, was arbitrary and unsustainable.
Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and directed the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner as per her merit and category, subject to the outcome of the criminal case and an affidavit undertaking not to claim equity if convicted.
Cause Title: Neeraj Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:13298)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Anand Purohit; Advocates Mayank Roy, Sameer Pareek, Vishal Singhal
Respondents: Additional Advocate General Rajesh Panwar; Advocate Meenal Singhvi
