The mere registration of an FIR does not justify denial of appointment; public employers have discretion in hiring based on candidate suitability and integrity.

JUDGMENT :

PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.

1. The present petition is preferred assailing the decision of the Additional Director, Education Department, Sachivalay, Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent”) for not giving appointment to the petitioner on the post of Junior Clerk, despite being selected to the said post.

2. The prayers as prayed in the writ petition are as under:

“7(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ in the nature of the writ to quash and set aside the Order No. MVR/470/JUKA/M.10/2017/5045-48 dated 30.10.2017 passed by respondent no. 4 herein (Annexure-A) and further direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner to the said post.

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the further operation, implementation and execution of the Order No. MVR/470/JUKA/M.10/2017/5045-48 dated 30.10.2017 passed by respondent no. 4 herein (Annexure-A).

(C) To pass such other further order as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent through Gujarat Subordinate Service Board, Gandhinagar, published an advertisement for filling up the vacancy of various posts. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner applied for the posts of non Sachivalaya Service, Junior Clerk, Office Assistant, Class-III and participated in the selection process. Thereafter the recruitment process started and the petitioner appeared in the written examination. Subsequently, in the written examination, the name of the petitioner was short listed and the petitioner came to be selected for the post of Office Assistant-Junior Clerk and his name was reflected in the select list. Due intimation was given to the petitioner informing him about his selection. Thereafter, Computer Proficiency Test was conducted between 03.01.2017 to 12.01.2017. In the Computer Proficiency Test, the list of selected candidates was displayed and the petitioner found place in the list dated 27.02.2017 of selected candidates. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was invited for document verification process vide communication dated 02.03.2017.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to inviting for document verification process, he was involved in the offence relating to paper leakage case and for which FIR came to be filed and registered as C.R. No. I-36 of 2017 before Lunawada Police Station at Mahisagar. The name of the petitioner initially was not in the FIR, however, the name of the petitioner came to be added and was shown in the charge sheet which was subsequently filed. It is also the case of the petitioner that subsequent to his involvement in the criminal case, he was taken into custody, however, he was granted regular bail in connection with the offence being C.R. No. I-36 of 2017. However, grant of bail was challenged before this Court and thereafter, this Court was pleased to cancel the regular bail granted vide order dated 03.05.2019. Subsequent to the cancellation of the bail, the petitioner was again arrested and thereafter again he was granted bail in connection with the offence and as on today, the petitioner is on bail. In between all the activities which were going on with respect to criminal case, the respondent vide communication dated 13.10.2017 informed the petitioner that as the petitioner was involved in the criminal case, he cannot be given the appointment. It is the case of the petitioner that when such communication was addressed to the petitioner, he was already in police custody.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the release of the petitioner on bail, he made several oral representations to the respondents to given him appointment, however, all the oral representations were not considered by the respondents, therefore petitioner sent a communication by way of representation dated 06.06.2019 request