Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ravi Kumar vs The State Of Rajasthan … on 2 April, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:16882]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6944/2025
Ravi Kumar S/o Shri Devi Lal Meena, Aged About 40 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 16, Gandhi Basti, Purani Aabadi, Sri
Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
Of Medical And Health, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, State Health And Family Welfare Institute,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical Health And Family
Welfare Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RS Choudhary.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order(Oral)
02/04/2025
1. Petitioner herein, aspirant to become Nursing Officer, inter
alia, seeks quashing of impugned communication dated
20.03.2025 alongwith minutes of meeting dated 05.03.2025, vide
which his candidature for the said post pursuant to advertisement
dated 05.05.2023, was rejected.
2. Briefly speaking, relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are
that the petitioner applied for the post of Nursing Officer under the
ST category as per the advertisement dated 05.05.2023, which
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:11:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16882] (2 of 15) [CW-6944/2025]
outlined a selection process based on 70% weightage for
qualifications and 30% for experience. He had served as Nurse
Grade-II on a contract basis at CHC, Mirjewala, for 1,201 days and
obtained an experience certificate on 23.05.2023. His document
verification was conducted on 07.10.2023, and he was placed at
Sr. No. 1853 in the final selection list published on 06.12.2024
with a score of 76.128%. He was subsequently appointed as a
Nursing Officer on 09.01.2025 and posted at PHC Hindumalkot, Sri
Ganganagar, at Sr. No. 1864 in the appointment list.
2.2. On 05.04.2022, the petitioner lodged a complaint at P.S.
Matilirathan, Sri Ganganagar, alleging that Gurpreet Singh and
others wrongfully harvested his ‘Kinnu’ Crop, causing significant
loss. When he confronted them on 29.03.2022, they assaulted
him, resulting in FIR No. 0049/2022 dated 05.04.2022 under
Sections 341 and 323 IPC against the accused-Sharwan Kumar.
2.3. In retaliation, Smt. Krishna Devi, wife of accused-Shrawan
Kumar, lodged FIR No. 50/2022, dated 05.04.2022, under
Sections 447 and 354 IPC, at P.S. Matilirathan, Sri Ganganagar,
alleging that the petitioner misbehaved with her on 29.03.2022.
Consequently, a charge sheet was filed, and charges were framed
by the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, on 11.08.2023.
2.4. Following his appointment, the petitioner underwent medical
and police verification. The Superintendent of Police, Sri
Ganganagar, issued a verification certificate on 16.01.2025,
confirming the pending FIR No. 50/2022 against him.
2.5. On 14.01.2025, the petitioner requested respondent No. 4 to
grant him joining. However, a three-member committee, chaired
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:11:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16882] (3 of 15) [CW-6944/2025]
by respondent No.4, decided on 05.03.2025 to deny his
appointment per the Department of Personnel’s circular dated
04.12.2019. Hence, this petition.
3. Relevant stand taken by the respondents in their reply is as
follows:-
3.1. The petitioner’s appointment was denied due to the pendency
of a criminal case registered against him under Sections 447 and
354 IPC in FIR No. 50/2022 at P.S. Matilirathan, Sri Ganganagar.
The case, involving allegations of outraging the modesty of a
woman, is currently under trial.
3.2. As per the Department of Personnel (DoP) Circular dated
04.12.2019, candidates involved in offences of moral turpitude,
including those related to outraging a woman’s modesty, are
ineligible for government employment.
3.3. The petitioner’s pending criminal case under Section 354 IPC
falls under moral turpitude, rendering him ineligible as per the
DoP guidelines. Moreover, he failed to disclose the pending case in
his recruitment application, violating the recruitment guidelines
and further justifying the denial of his appointment.
3.4. The CMHO, Sri Ganganagar, acted within legal and
administrative discretion in refusing the petitioner’s joining, in
public interest and in tune with the DoP Circular, ensuring that
individuals with pending cases of moral turpitude are not
appointed to sensitive government positions, particularly in the
healthcare sector. Hence petition deserves dismissal.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
and gone through the case record as well as annexures appended
therewith.
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:11:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16882] (4 of 15) [CW-6944/2025]
5. It is pertinent to note here that the allegation of
concealment/misrepresentation levelled against the petitioner qua
non-disclosure of the criminal case is totally misplaced. A perusal
of the prescribed online application form (Annexure-8) reveals
that the prescribed proforma itself did not mandate disclosure of
any criminal proceedings.
6. In the aforesaid context, first and foremost, this very Bench
rendered a decision in Kuljeet Singh Vs. The State of
Rajasthan & Ors.1, decided on 21.03.2025 (though it was a case
of seeking compassionate appointment, but the principles
enunciated therein are applicable herein as well), relevant part of
which, is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“10. Even, qua the alleged misrepresentation, as canvassed by
learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner cannot be held
guilty for the same very reason i.e. when the prescribed application
proforma itself did not mandate disclosure of pending criminal
proceedings. In the absence of any such requirement, the petitioner
duly complied with all other formalities. No inference of
misrepresentation can, therefore, be drawn. Further, the pendency of
criminal case does appear to be involving allegations that either
impinge upon integrity, moral turpitude, or suitability for public
service. Such a pendency, ought not, by itself, disentitle a candidate
from being considered for appointment, if otherwise fit, suited and
eligible. Moreover, compassionate appointment is a welfare measure
intended to alleviate the penury/financial hardship faced by the
dependents due to sudden death of their sole bread winner deceased
employee, by providing immediate succor to the family, and its denial
on hyper-technical grounds would defeat its very object.
11. Moving further, in Bheemsen Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.2
(decided recently vide judgment dated 17.03.2025 by this very Bench),
while submitting an on-line application for the post of Constable
Driver, the petitioner in response to the column “whether any FIR has
ever been lodged against you?” had answered “No”. However, during
verification, it was discovered that an FIR under sections
323/324/147/148/149 IPC had been lodged against him. The
respondents’ stance was that owing to concealment of material act, the
petitioner was not entitled to any relief. This contention was rejected by
relying upon the Apex Court judgment in Ravindra Kumar v. State of1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11588/2023
2 S.B.C.W.P. No.9380/2021(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:11:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16882] (5 of 15) [CW-6944/2025]Uttar Pradesh & Ors.3, decided on 22ndFebruary 2024. Relevant
thereof (Bheemsen’s judgment) is extracted hereinbelow:-
“5. No doubt at the time of filling up the online
application for the post in question the petitioner did not
disclose the factum of registration of an FIR against him.
Reasons are not far to seek. He must have been in a
dilemma that in case he discloses the same, there was high
prospect of being disqualified at that very stage. He will
not be allowed to participate in the selection process.
Moreover, his dilemma seems to have arisen from his bona
fide belief that he was falsely implicated in the FIR, as no
role of any kind was attributed to him. He was not even a
principal accused, though, of course, was arrayed as
accused being part of assembly of people who were
present at the scene of occurrence, which led to
registration of FIR.
6. In somewhat similar circumstances, in the case of
Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Civil
Appeal No. 5902/2012), decided on 22 ndFebruary 2024,
Supreme Court addressed an issue akin to what is herein,
where a candidate who had explicitly stated in an affidavit
that no criminal proceedings were pending against him.
While dealing with this situation, the Supreme Court
observed as under:-
“29. xxx xxx xxx While examining
whether the procedure adopted for enquiry by the
authority was fair and reasonable, we find that the
order of cancellation of 12.04.2005 does not even
follow the mandate prescribed in Clause 4 of the
Form of verification of character set out in the
earlier part of this judgment. Like it was found in
Ram Kumar (supra) instead of considering
whether the appellant was suitable for appointment,
the Appointing Authority has mechanically held his
selection was irregular and illegal because the
appellant had furnished an affidavit with incorrect
facts. Hence, even applying the board principles set
out in para 93.7 of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra),
we find that the order of cancellation dated
12.04.2005 is neither fair nor reasonable. Clause 9
of the recruitment notification has to be read in the
context of the law laid down in the cases set out
hereinabove.
30. On the facts of the case and in the
backdrop of the special circumstances set out
hereinabove, where does the non-disclosure of the
unfortunate criminal case, (which too ended in
acquittal), stand in the scheme of things? In our
opinion on the peculiar facts of the case, we do not
think it can be deemed fatal for the appellant.
Board-brushing every non-disclosure as a3 Civil Appeal No.5902/2012, decided on 22.02.2024
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:11:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16882] (6 of 15) [CW-6944/2025]disqualification, will be unjust and the same will
tantamount to being completely oblivious to the
ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and
diverse country. Each case will depend on the facts
and circumstances that prevail thereon, and the
court will have to take a holistic view, based on
objective criteria, with the available precedents
serving as a guide. It can never be a one size fits all
scenario.
7. Per contra the above, learned counsel for the
respondents relies on an another judgment of Supreme
Court rendered in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyug Prasaran
Nigam Ltd. Vs. Anil Kanwariya, reported in (2021) 10
SCC 136, wherein it was held as under :-
“12. The issue/question may be considered from
another angle, from the employer’s point of view.
The question is not about whether an employee was
involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether
he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The
question is about the credibility and/or
trustworthiness of such an employee who at the
initial stage of the employment, i.e., while
submitting the declaration/verification and/or
applying for a post made false declaration and/or
not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of
having involved in a criminal case. If the correct
facts would have been disclosed, the employer
might not have appointed him. Then the question is
of TRUST. Therefore, in such a situation, where the
employer feels that an employee who at the initial
stage itself has made a false statement and/or not
disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the
material facts and therefore he cannot be continued
in service because such an employee cannot be
relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be
forced to continue such an employee. The
choice/option whether to continue or not to
continue such an employee always must be given to
the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed
and as observed hereinabove in catena of decision
such an employee cannot claim the appointment
and/or continue to be in service as a matter of
right.”
8. While the observations contained hereinabove, no
doubt gives the discretion to an employer to disqualify
candidate in case of non-disclosure / suppression of the
material facts but the pressing question would be that
whether it is a case of the employer having a trust deficit
arising out of the non-disclosure by a candidate?
9. In the present case, rejection of the petitioner’s
candidature does not seem to be based on trust deficit but
merely a mechanical exercise of mind by stating that since
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:11:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16882] (7 of 15) [CW-6944/2025]
(i) he suppressed the registration of the FIR; and (ii)
registration of the FIR disqualifies him, therefore, he was
not eligible to be appointed.
10. The impugned order does not reflect that there
was an objective view taken by independent application of
mind. Decision was merely regarding petitioner’s
ineligibility, and it is owing to that he was held to be non-
suitable.”
It is pertinent to note here that in Ravindra Kumar (supra),
reliance in turn is placed on a larger bench judgment of the Apex
Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.4.
12. The petitioner’s case herein is much stronger and stands on a
higher pedestal. Irrefragably, the application for compassionate
appointment was required to be submitted in the proforma prescribed
by the respondents. In his case, the proforma for application had no
column or question to bring forth information about the candidate’s
involvement in any criminal case. The petitioner simply filled up the
required information as per the prescribed columns and submitted his
application Annexure A-5. As there was no column or question in the
application proforma seeking information qua the candidate’s
involvement in any criminal case, the petitioner cannot be blamed for
non-disclosure thereof, be it intentional or unintentional, as the case
may be. This being the situation, I see no reason why the benefit of
judgment ibid be not given to the petitioner.
13. Adverting now the main plank of defense taken by the
respondents i.e. circular dated 04.12.2019 (it is part in Hindi part
English), relevant part thereof is as under :-
“vr% ‘kklu esa lHkh Lrjksa ij ,d:irk cuk, j[kus ds fgr
esa] bl fo”k; esa iwoZ esa tkjh rRlac/kh lHkh ifji=ksa@funsZ”kksa
ds vf/kØe.k esa fuEukuqlkj fn’kkfunsZ”k tkjh fd;s tkrs gSa %&pfj= lR;kiu ds laca/k esa fofHkUu lsok fu;eksa esa izko/kku
bl izdkj gSa %&Character. The character of a candidate for direct
recruitment to the service must be such as to qualify him for
employment in the service. He must produce a certificate
of good character from the principal/Academic Officer of
the University or College in which he was last educated
and two such certificates written not more than six months
prior to the date of application from two responsible
persons not connected with the College or University and
not related to him.
(1) A conviction by a court of law need not of
itself involve the refusal of a certificate of
good character. The circumstances of the
conviction should be taken into account and
if they involve no moral turpitude or4 (2016) 8 SCC 471
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:11:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16882] (8 of 15) [CW-6944/2025]association with crimes of violance or with
a movement which has a its object the
overthrow by violent means of the
government as established by law, the mere
conviction need not be regarded as a dis-
qualification.
(2) Ex-prisoners, who by their disciplined life
while in prison and by their subsequent
good conduct have prove to be completely
reformed, should not be discriminated
against on grounds of their previous
conviction for the purpose of employment in
the service. Those, who are convicted of
offences not involving moral turpitude or
violance, shall be deemed to have been
completely reformed on the production of a
report to that effect from the
Superintendent, After Care Home or if there
are no such Homes in a particular district,
from the superintendent of police of that
district.
(3) Those convicted of offences involving moral
turpitude or violence shall be required to
produce a certificate from the
superintendent, After Care Home, or if there
is no such home in particular district, from
the superintendent of police of that district,
endorsed by the Inspector General of
prisons to the effect that they are suitable
for employment as they have proved to be
completely reformed by their disciplined life
while in prison and by their subsequent
good conduct in an After Care Home.
bl laca/k esa izdj.k eku- loksZPp U;k;ky; esa igqapus
ij ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk fnYyh iz”kklu cuke lq”khy
dqekj ¼1996 ¼11½ CC 605½ esa ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k
gqvk gS fd Þlsok esa fu;qfDr iznku djrs le; vH;FkhZ dk
pfj= ,oa iwoZ vkpj.k egRoiw.kZ gSA vijkf/kd izdj.k esa
nks”kflf) vFkok nks”keqfDr vFkkZr okLrfod ifj.kke bruk
lqlaxr ugha gS ftruk dh vH;FkhZ dk vkpj.k o pfj=Aß
lsok fu;eksa dh vis{kk ;g gS fd ^fdlh vH;FkhZ dks
fu;qfDr fn, tkus ;k u fn, tkus ds laca/k esa fu;qfDr
izkf/kdkjh dks izR;sd izdj.k ds rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa ftl
in ij fu;qfDr nh tkuh gS ml in ds dk;Z dh izd`fr ,oa
xfjek ds vuqlkj xq.kkoxq.k ij fu.kZ; ysuk pkfg,A iwoZ
vkpj.k ds vk/kkj ij fdlh Hkh vH;FkhZ dks fu;qfDr ds ;ksX;
;k v;ksX; ikus dk fu.kZ; djrs le; fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh dks
izR;sd izdj.k esa vijk/k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks Hkh /;ku esa j[k
dj vH;FkhZ ds vkpj.k dk vkadyu djuk pkfg,A*
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:11:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16882] (9 of 15) [CW-6944/2025]
mDrkuqlkj ;g fufoZokn gS fd fdlh vH;FkhZ dks
fu;qfDr fn, tkus@ugha fn, tkus dk fu.kZ; vafre :i ls
fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh dks gh] lqlaxr lsok fu;eksa dks /;ku esa
j[krs gq,] xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij ysuk gksxkA rFkkfi dqN
izdj.k ,slh izd`fr ds gksaxs ftuesa Li”Vr% ;g ekuk tk
ldrk gS fd vH;FkhZ fu;qfDr gsrq ik= ugha gS tcfd vU;
dqN ,sls izdj.k Hkh gksaxs ftuesa fu;qfDr ls oafpr fd;k
tkuk fdlh Hkh n`f”V ls mfpr@U;k;iw.kZ ugha ekuk tk
ldrkA vr% fu;qfDr vf/kdkfj;ksa ds lkekU; ekxZn”kZukFkZ
fun”kZu ds :i esa ,slh izd`fr ds izdj.kksa dks ;gka ys[kc)
fd;k tk jgk gS %&
1- ,sls izdj.k@fLFkfr;ka ftuesa fu;qfDr gsrq vik=rk ekuh tkuh
pkfg,%&
;fn fdlh Hkh vH;FkhZ ds fo:) fuEu esa ls fdlh Hkh
izdkj ds vijk/k ds rgr izdj.k vUos{k.kk/khu@U;k;ky; esa
fopkjk/khu ¼under trial½ gS vFkok nks”kflf) mijkar ltk gks
pqdh gS] rks mls jkT; ds v/khu lsokvksa@inksa ij fu;qfDr
gsrq ik= ugha ekuk tkuk pkfg, %&
¼i½ uSfrd v/kerk ;Fkk Ny] dwVjpuk] eRrrk] cykRlax]
fdlh efgyk dh yTtk Hkax djus ds vijk/k esa vUroZfyrrk
¼involvement½ gksA
¼ii½ Lokid vkS”kf/k vkSj eu% izHkkoh inkFkZ voS/k O;kikj
fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 ¼1988 dk vf/kfu;e la- 26½
esa ;FkkifjHkkf”kr voS/k O;kikj esa vUroZfyrrk gksA
¼iii½ vuSfrd O;kikj ¼fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk
dsUnzh; vf/kfu;e la- 104½ esa ;FkkifjHkkf”kr vuSfrd nqO;kZikj
esa vUroZfyrrk gksA
¼iv½ fu;ksftr fgalk ;k jkT; ds fo#) ,sls fdlh vijk/k
esa vUroZfyrrk gks] tks Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860 dk
dsUnzh; vf/kfu;e la- 45½ ds v/;k; 6 esa of.kZr gSA
¼v½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds v/;k; 16 ,oa 17
esa ;Fkkof.kZr vijk/kksa esa vUroZfyrrk gksA
¼vi½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 147] 148 ¼cyok
djuk½ ds vijk/k esa vUroZfyrrk gksA
¼vii½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 498 A ¼fL=;ksa ds izfr
vkijkf/kd nqO;Zogkj&ngst½ ds vijk/k esa vUroZfyrrk gksA
¼viii½ vtk@vttk vf/kfu;e 1989 ds rgr vijk/k esa
vUroZfyrrk gksA
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:11:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16882] (10 of 15) [CW-6944/2025]
¼ix½ ySafxx vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e
¼iksDlks½] 2012 ds rgr vijk/k esa vUroZfyrrk gksA
;gka ;g Hkh Li”V fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr izdkj ds
vijk/kksa ls lacaf/kr dksbZ Hkh lwpuk tkucw>dj fNikus okys
vH;fFkZ;ksa dks Hkh fu;qfDr gsrq vik= ekuk tk,xkA
2- ,sls izdj.k@fLFkfr;ka ftuesa vH;FkhZ dks fu;qfDr gsrq ik=
ekuk tkuk pkfg,%&
¼i½ ftu vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vkijkf/kd izdj.k esa vUos’k.k esa
nks’kh ugha ik;k x;k gks rFkk lacaf/kr HkrhZ esa ijh{kk ifj.kke
tkjh gksus ds ,d o’kZ ds Hkhrj vUos’k.kksijkar ,Q-vkj-
U;k;ky; esa izLrqr dh tk pqdh gksA
¼ii½nks’keqfDr ds ekeyksa esa] foHkkx esa bl laca/k esa xfBr
lfefr ftlesa ,d iqfyl vf/kdkjh Hkh lnL; gksxk] vH;FkhZ
ds iwoZo`r (antecedents), vkjksikas dh xgurk ,oa nks’keqfDr
dk vk/kkj] vFkkZr D;k nks’keqfDr lEekutud :i ls iznku
dh xbZ gS vFkok lansg ds ykHk@le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij iznku
dh xbZ gS] vkfn dk leqfpr ijh{k.k
dj] vH;FkhZ dks fu;qfDr nsus ds laca/k esa fu.kZ; ysxhA
¼iii½ vH;fFkZ;ksa ds ,sls izdj.k ftuesa U;k;ky; }kjk
ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12 dk ykHk fn;k tkdj
ifjoh{kk ij NksMk x;k gksA ¼nks’kflf) fdlh fujgZrk ls xzLr
ugha@jktdh; lsok@Hkkoh thou ij fdlh izdkj dk foijhr
izHkko ugha½A
¼iv½ vH;fFkZ;ksa ds ,sls izdj.k ftuesa nks’kh djkj fn;k
tkdj fd”kksj U;k; ¼ckydksa dh ns[kjs[k vkSj laj{k.k½
vf/kfu;e] 2005 dh /kkjk 24¼i½ dk ykHk iznku fd;k x;k
gksA
leLr fu;ksDrk vf/kdkjhx.k ls vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd os
vH;fFkZ;ksa ds pfj=@iqfyl lR;kiu ds laca/k esa fu;qfDr ds
le; lacaf/kr lsok fu;eksa ds izko/kkuksa ,oa bu fn’kk&funsZ”kksa
ds izko/kkuksa dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, leqfpr fu.kZ; ysaxsA rFkk
mDr izd`fr ds izdj.kksa dks u rks vuko”;d :i&ls yfEcr
j[ksaxs vkSj u gh dkfeZd foHkkx dks lanfHkZr djsaxsA”
14. It would be seen from the text of circular dated 04.12.2019 that
the same is in the nature of general guidelines to be observed by the
concerned authorities and that the ultimate decision to adjudge the
suitability or unsuitability of a candidate has to be taken by the
appointing authority by taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of each case. Further, it has been laid down in the
circular ibid that while appointing a candidate, his character; and
previous conduct are important. The result of criminal case – whether
conviction or acquittal – are not as much relevant as are his conduct
and character. These guidelines also show that as per the Service
Rules, there is no absolute or automatic disqualification for
employment of a candidate even after his conviction and sentencing
for criminal offences (obviously any offence, including those falling
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:11:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16882] (11 of 15) [CW-6944/2025]
in Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code now Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita or an offence involving moral turpitude) and that on
satisfying certain conditions, such candidate can also be considered
for appointment.
14.1. Circular’s emphasis on individual assessment conveys, and
rightly so, that it is not meant to serve as an inflexible rulebook but,
rather general guidelines envisaged therein are to be borne in mind.
The context Matters. Thus, the ultimate decision about a candidate’s
suitability must be made on a case-by-case basis. This allows the
appointing authority to look at the totality of a candidate’s character
and past conduct, rather than relying solely on the outcome of a
criminal proceeding.
14.2. It becomes far more relevant in cases where a candidate might
have a minor or isolated offence, and may even be a case of strong
reformation and good conduct over time, but yet he is rejected by
sheer routine mechanics. The guidelines contained in the circular are
not to be treated so rigidly as to not even allow for the possibility that
a candidate’s past, even if marred by being a suspect or under trial,
may be outweighed by subsequent reformation and exemplary
behavior. In the present case there is no other recorded criminal
history other than the FIR in question, which too, seems to have
arisen due to some personal dispute. More of it later.”
7. In view of aforesaid, it transpires that there is absolutely no
plea or material placed on record in the present case to show that
the appointing authority after due and objective consideration and
application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case had
taken any conscious decision on it’s merits for refusal to appoint
the petitioner.
8. Moreover, having seen the report dated 20.03.2025 of
Screening Committee, which consists of four members, including
Director Health, who is also the appointing authority of the
petitioner, it transpires that the same simplicitor states that in
view of the petitioner being an under trial in an offence under
Section 447 read with 354 of IPC, the same since falls under
Chapter XVI & XVII of the Circular dated 04.12.2019, therefore,
he is non-suited and is ineligible for appointment on the post in
question. There is no other reasoning whatsoever of any kind to
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:11:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16882] (12 of 15) [CW-6944/2025]
give any finding and/or opinion that the allegations against the
petitioner have any substance and/or the role attributed to him in
any manner amounts to moral turpitude and/or the pendency of
the trial in any manner is likely to impinge upon the nature of
duties to be performed by him.
9. Reference may also be had to another judgment rendered by
this Bench in the case of Neeraj Kanwar Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9517/2024,
decided on 27.03.2025. Relevant thereof, reads as under:-
“21. In view of law laid down by the Apex Court and the
policy guidelines in the respondents own circular dated
04.12.2019, I am of the opinion that it was incumbent upon the
appointing authority/respondents to take into consideration, on
objective criteria, the relevant facts and circumstances of the
case, including the nature of duties and status of the post in
question, as also the circumstances of the offence, and then
decide on the petitioner’s suitability or unsuitability on merits
and demerits.
22 to 24. xxx xxx xxx
25. In my opinion, the rules of natural justice and fair play
required that the respondents at least to convey to the petitioner
in writing why despite her selection on merit, she was not being
appointed. That too was not done thus depriving the petitioner
even of an opportunity to question/challenge the reasons, if
given.
26. Even if, as contended, there was no necessity for the
screening committee to disclose the reasons for not granting the
appointment to the petitioner, that would not relieve the
respondents of their obligation to plead and produce on record
requisite material to show to the satisfaction of the Court’s
conscience that the appointing authority had in it’s discretion
decided to deny the appointment to the petitioner after
consideration of all relevant aspects, with due application of
mind on an objective criteria. Needless to say, that the discretion
so vested in the appointing authority was required to be
exercised in a just, fair and reasonable manner and not
arbitrarily or capriciously. Further, the same was also required
to be demonstrated on record. The respondents have utterly
failed to do discharge that obligation.
27 to 30. xxx xxx xxx
31. Even otherwise, one ought to be mindful that the youth
need a reformative approach to the indiscretions committed in
heat of the moment, which may or may not be intentional.
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:11:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16882] (13 of 15) [CW-6944/2025]
Societal and so should the legal perspective be, of course
depending upon the nature of delinquency, that youthful
indiscretions should not permanently tarnish an individual’s
future. A compassionate and reformative approach ought to be
adopted when dealing with young individuals who may have
committed minor transgressions. Young people are still in the
process of emotional and intellectual development. They often
act impulsively, sometimes making decisions that are not well
thought out. 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.
32. 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.
33. Furthermore, the principle of proportionality must be
kept in mind by the administrative authority. Not all offences are
of the same gravity, and minor indiscretions should not be
equated with serious crimes. In the present case, the petitioner’s
candidature has simply been rejected on the ground that criminal
cases are pending against her.
34. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that
the denial of appointment to the petitioner solely on the ground
of a pending criminal case, which does not involve moral
turpitude, is arbitrary and unsustainable.”
10. In the case in hand, from the reasoning assigned by the
Screening Committee it is borne out that the petitioner’s
candidature has been rejected in a mechanical manner without
looking into the further details or the merits of the pending trial
against him.
11. From the facts enumerated hereinabove, it is borne out that
it is a private dispute between the parties, which seems to have
been turned ugly and there were a cross FIRs registered one by
petitioner and other by opponent party. The possibility of a
motivated FIR, therefore, coupled with false allegations, cannot be
ruled out.
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:11:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16882] (14 of 15) [CW-6944/2025]
12. Be that as it may, it is a subject matter of trial.
13. As regards the conduct of the petitioner, it is held that he has
not indulged in any concealment or misrepresentation. Apex
Court’s judgment rendered by a 3-Judge Bench in case title Avtar
Singh Vs. Union of India5, states as under :
“38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in
character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal
case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of
the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to
decision of such case.”
14. In terms of the judgment ibid, the respondents are directed
to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner by passing
appropriate order pursuant to his selection, subject to the
petitioner being otherwise found meritorious, and the only reason
for not appointing him is the registration of the FIR, the
appointment letter shall be issued subject to the petitioner
providing an undertaking that, in the event of his subsequent
conviction in the alleged offence for which criminal proceedings
are pending, he shall not claim any equity, and his appointment
shall be reviewed by the competent authority in accordance with
the law.
15. Petition is allowed in above terms.
16. Needful be done within a period of 30 days upon petitioner
approaching the respondent with the web-print of the instant
order.
17. In the parting, I may hasten to add here that for the period
the petitioner remained out of service, he shall not be entitled to
5 2016 (8) SCC 471
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:11:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16882] (15 of 15) [CW-6944/2025]
any financial benefits on the principal of ‘No Work No Pay’.
However, he shall be accorded all the notional benefits including
seniority with effect from the same date his counterparts were
appointed pursuant to the same selection process wherein
petitioner had competed along with them.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
22-/Jitender/Sumit
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No.
(Downloaded on 18/04/2025 at 10:11:22 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link