IMPORTANT POINT
The mere pendency of a criminal case does not disqualify a candidate for government employment if the charges do not involve moral turpitude, and the presumption of innocence must be maintained until proven guilty.

JUDGMENT :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved of the action of the respondents in denying him appointment on the post of Technical Helper on the ground that a criminal case is pending trial against him.

2. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that the respondents published an advertisement in the month of October 2013 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Technical Helper, out of which, 984 posts were advertised for Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. The petitioner, who was possessing the requisite qualifications for the post, applied in the SC category. The petitioner was issued admission card and he appeared in the written examination and he secured 128 marks. The respondents prepared a list of meritorious candidates upto 1.5 times of the vacancies to call for document verification for final selection. In the said list, the petitioner was placed at S.No.1119. He was issued a call letter directing him to appear for document verification on 16.04.2015. In the call letter it was mentioned that a declaration that no criminal case is pending against him in any court and he has not been convicted in any criminal case has to be furnished and if he has been convicted or any criminal case is pending against him, then the details of the same should be mentioned. The petitioner appeared before the respondents on the scheduled date for document verification. On that day, he submitted an affidavit to the effect that a criminal case for the offences under Section 447 and 323 of the IPC is pending against him in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh. After verification of the documents, the respondents published the marks of the candidates. As per the cut off marks, the candidate of SC category, who has secured 114 marks, has been given appointment as Technical Helper, whereas the petitioner who secured 128 marks has been denied appointment on the ground that a criminal case is pending against him. Being aggrieved of the said action of the respondents, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjust inasmuch as mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be the sole ground to deny appointment to a meritorious candidate. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner has not been held guilty of the charge and trial is still underway. He further submits that the offences alleged against the petitioner do not involve moral turpitude, in fact, the same are petty in nature. It was a dispute on trivial issue with the fellow villagers and the petitioner has been implicated in the case only because he is family member of one of the party involved in the case. Be that as it may, the parties have now settled to dispute amicably and have arrived at a compromise and in every probability, the petitioner shall be acquitted from the charges. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the matter of appointment in Government service, there is not a complete bar for a person having criminal antecedents. Even a convicted person can be given appointment in Government service if the appointing authority feels that there are redeeming features and reasons to believe that such a person has cured himself of the weakness. However, such is not a case in the present matter as the petitioner has not been convicted. The trial of the case may still take a long time and if the petitioner is denied appointment at this stage, then even in the case of acquittal, he would not be able to get an opportunity to get appointment in Government service. Learned counsel in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the following judgments :-

(1) State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah [1999(1) SCC 529]

(2)