The court established that the pendency of a criminal case cannot disqualify a candidate for an unskilled position if not explicitly stated in the job advertisement.

ORDER :

Sameer Jain, J.

1. The instant petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers, as reproduced herein-under:-

“1. Hence prayed that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Technical Helper forthwith with all consequential benefits without any delay.

2. Any other order of relief as deemed just and proper by the Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an advertisement was floated for the post of ‘Technical Helper’ in JVVNL/AVVNL/JDVVNL. In total, 2930 posts were advertised. Learned counsel argued that qua disqualification of candidates, the relevant clause so incorporated within the advertisement was Clause No. 6, wherein pendency of a criminal case was not incorporated as a ground for declaring/treating a candidate as unfit.

3. In this background, learned counsel submitted that having the requisite educational qualifications, the petitioner applied for the post of ‘Technical Helper’ and was thereafter, selected on merits as well. However, the cause and controversy in the matter arose when merely on account of pendency of a criminal case, the petitioner was ousted from the selection process, despite having been declared meritorious. Being aggrieved, the petitioner even served notice(s) for demand of justice upon the respondents, but unfortunately, no heed was paid to them.

4. Therefore, being further aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thereafter, this Court while considering the case of the petitioner on a prima facie basis, vide order dated 31.07.2012, granted interim protection in favour of the petitioner, directing the respondents to keep one seat vacant qua the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this factual background, submitted that the post of ‘Technical Helper’ is an unskilled post as per the Rajasthan State Electricity Board(Technical Workman Service) Regulations, 1975. It was argued that despite being selected on merits and having obtained higher marks amongst the candidates selected in the petitioner’ category, the petitioner was not selected. The only reason, which is also not refuted by the counsel for the respondent regarding the petitioner’s non-consideration of appointment, pertained to the pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner. It was submitted that the said clause/criteria did not form part of the advertisement so issued and was only voiced by the respondents at a belated stage i.e. at the time of document verification. Nowhere in the advertisement and/or form, was any requirement included, asking the candidates to disclose the pendency of a criminal case against them. It was only at the stage of document verification that the said condition was imposed upon the candidates. Regardless, the petitioner duly disclosed the information as sought in the prescribed format.

6. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even otherwise, the Regulations of 1975, by way of Regulation Nos. 4(f) and 4(k) defines ‘character’ and ‘disqualification’ for appointment. Howsoever, the said Rules, in no overt or covert form, have prescribed the pendency of a criminal case as a ground for disqualification from the selection process, especially when the candidate is meritorious.

7. In support of the contentions leveled, learned counsel placed reliance upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Mohammed Imran vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 17 SCC 696, Ravindra Kumar vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 INSC 131 and Avtar Singh vs. Union of India reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471. While placing reliance upon the said judgments, it was submitted that the yardstick for rejection or acceptance of an applic