Acquittal in Criminal Case Cannot Be Sole Ground to Deny Teacher Appointment: Rajasthan High Court - 2025-04-14

Rajasthan High Court Orders Appointment for Teacher Denied Job Due to Now-Dismissed Criminal Charges

Jodhpur, Rajasthan – The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has ruled in favor of a teacher aspirant, Shanker Lal Jat, directing the state authorities to appoint him to the post of Teacher Grade-III. Justice Arun Monga, presiding over the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16518/2021, delivered the judgment on March 19, 2025, criticizing the respondents' decision to deny appointment based on a criminal case in which Mr. Jat was subsequently acquitted.

Case Background: Selection and Subsequent Denial

Shanker Lal Jat had successfully cleared the selection process initiated by the Primary Education Department, Rajasthan, pursuant to an advertisement dated September 11, 2017, for the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II Science & Math. He was even issued an appointment order on October 28, 2021, for a school in Barmer district. However, his appointment was stalled, and he was not allowed to join duty. The reason cited by the education authorities was a pending FIR against him under Sections 498-A (cruelty to a woman by husband or relatives) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Respondents' Stance: Reliance on Circulars Regarding Criminal Antecedents

The respondents, represented by the Additional Advocate General, argued that the denial of appointment was in line with government circulars dated July 15, 2016, and December 4, 2019, which pertain to candidates with criminal antecedents. They contended that the mere inclusion of Mr. Jat’s name in the selection list did not guarantee appointment, especially since the appointment order was provisional and subject to police verification. They asserted that the circulars allowed for rejection of candidature if an aspirant had criminal cases registered against them, especially under Chapter XVI and XVII of the IPC.

Petitioner's Argument: Acquittal and No Concealment

Represented by Mr. Himanshu Pareek, the petitioner argued that the respondents' action was unjust. Crucially, Mr. Pareek highlighted that Mr. Jat had been acquitted in the criminal case vide a judgment dated November 13, 2024, by the Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura. Furthermore, he emphasized that Mr. Jat had not concealed any information in his application, as the online application form did not even contain a column requiring disclosure of criminal involvement. He also presented a character verification report from the District Police Superintendent, Shahpur, which contained no adverse remarks and stated ‘OK’.

Court's Observation: Misplaced Reliance on Circulars and Lack of Application of Mind

Justice Monga pointed out a critical flaw in the respondents' defense: their reliance on a superseded circular dated July 15, 2016. He emphasized that the operative circular was dated December 4, 2019, which itself states that these are guidelines, and the appointing authority must consider each case on its merits. The court noted, "Firstly, circular dated 04.12.2019 itself shows that the previous circular dated 15.07.2016 stood superseded. Therefore, the respondent’s reliance on superseded circular dated 15.07.2016 is wholly misplaced."

Furthermore, the court observed a lack of evidence suggesting that the appointing authority had actually applied its mind to the specific facts of Mr. Jat's case. Justice Monga stated, "There is absolutely no plea or material placed on record to show that the appointing authority after due and objective consideration of and application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case had taken any conscious decision on it’s merits for refusal to allow the petitioner to join duty. It cannot said more than just a mechanical approach of the respondents, totally bereft of application of mind…"

Reference to Supreme Court's Avtar Singh Judgment

The High Court leaned heavily on the Supreme Court's judgment in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471 . This landmark ruling established that while employers can assess a candidate's antecedents, the ultimate decision must be based on objective criteria and due consideration of relevant aspects. The Supreme Court in Avtar Singh had held that for trivial cases, employers have the discretion to condone suppression of facts or even appoint candidates despite pending cases, subject to the case's outcome.

Justice Monga underscored the Apex Court's view, stating that "ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects… Suppression of “material” information presupposes that what is suppressed that “matters” not every technical or trivial matter." He found the respondents' action to be in violation of the principles laid down in Avtar Singh and their own policy instructions.

Final Order: Appointment Directed with Contingencies

Consequently, the Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition. The court directed the respondents to allow Mr. Jat to join duty, provided a post is available based on the 2017 advertisement. If no post is immediately vacant, the court ordered the creation of a supernumerary post, ensuring Mr. Jat receives notional benefits and seniority from the date his counterparts were appointed. However, the court clarified that Mr. Jat would not be entitled to any past financial benefits, adhering to the principle of 'No Work No Pay'. The authorities have been given 30 days to implement the order.

This judgment serves as a significant reminder that government authorities must apply their mind judiciously and objectively when considering criminal antecedents of candidates, especially in light of acquittals and the principles of fair opportunity in public service.