Back
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Dana Ram, S/o. Shri Chutra Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
(Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the respondent-State may be directed to issue an order of appointment in favour of the petitioner on the post as per his merit position in view of the recommendations made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to ‘the RPSC’) in pursuance of the competitive examination held in furtherance of the advertisement dated 20.07.2021.
3. Briefly, the facts noted in the present writ petition are that, while working on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-I at the Government Senior Secondary School, Choudhariya Jaisalmer, the petitioner applied for the Rajastahan State & Subordinate Service Examination, conducted in pursuance of the advertisement dated 20.07.2021, for direct recruitment on the post of State Services. The petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination and after clearing the same, he appeared in the main examination conducted by the RPSC. The petitioner being meritorious RPSC called him for an interview, which was held on 17.07.2023. The result of the selection was declared by the RPSC on 17.11.2023 and the petitione
The court established that mere involvement in a criminal case does not automatically disqualify a candidate for government service; a detailed examination of moral implications is necessary.
The mere pendency of a criminal case not involving moral turpitude cannot justify denial of appointment, emphasizing the need for contextual evaluation of character and offences.
The main legal point established is that pending criminal cases, especially those involving grave moral turpitude, can justify the denial of appointment to government service, in accordance with the ....
Mere pendency of a criminal case does not disqualify a candidate for public service if the allegations are trivial and disclosed during the application process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the employer to consider antecedents and take appropriate decisions regarding the appointment of candidates with criminal anteced....
The court emphasized that reliance on superseded circulars for denying employment based on pending criminal cases is erroneous, requiring objective assessment of each candidate's suitability.
The court upheld the discretion of the State Government to deny appointment based on the pendency of serious criminal charges, emphasizing the importance of suitability for sensitive public service r....
Acquittal in criminal cases does not automatically guarantee employment; discretion in hiring must consider the nature of the offence and circumstances of the acquittal.
Pending criminal charges cannot bar government employment unless proven guilty. This holds especially true where prior judgments emphasize fair trial rights in such appointments.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
