Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN MONGA, J.
Kuljeet Singh S/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11588 of 2023
Decided on : 21-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 341, 323, 143 - Compassionate appointment policy - Petitioner, son of deceased Gram Sewak, denied appointment due to pending criminal case - Court held that non-disclosure of criminal case in application was not a concealment as the application form did not require such disclosure - Compassionate appointment is a welfare measure and denial on hyper-technical grounds is unjust - Respondents failed to apply mind to the facts of the case and acted mechanically. (Paras 1, 3, 10, 24)
(B) Compassionate Appointment - Eligibility criteria - Mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disqualify a candidate for compassionate appointment - Each case must be assessed on its own merits, considering the nature of the offence and the candidate's overall character. (Paras 10, 14, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment after his father, a Gram Sewak, died in harness. His application was rejected due to a pending FIR against him for minor offences, which he did not disclose as the application form did not require such information. (Paras 1, 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondents acted mechanically without proper consideration of the facts and the compassionate appointment policy, which aims to provide immediate relief to families of deceased employees. (Paras 24)
Issues: Whether the petitioner’s non-disclosure of a pending criminal case disqualified him from compassionate appointment and whether the respondents applied their mind to the facts of the case. (Paras 10, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of a requirement to disclose a criminal case in the application form means the petitioner cannot be blamed for non-disclosure. Compassionate appointments should not be denied on hyper-technical grounds, and the decision must be based on a holistic view of the candidate's character and circumstances. (Paras 10, 24)
Result: Petition allowed; the impugned letter quashed, and respondents directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment. (Paras 24)
ORDER :
ARUN MONGA, J.
1. While serving as Gram Sewak-Village Development Officer (‘VDO’), petitioner’s father died in harness on 08.05.2022. Being dependent son of the deceased Gram Sewak, he seeks benefit of the compassionate appointment policy. However, vide the impugned letter dated 19.09.2022 (Annexure-9), it was informed that since there is a pending criminal case against him in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur, arising out of an FIR No.92/2016 dated 29.06.2016 for offences under Sections 341, 323, and 143 of the IPC, he is ineligible for government employment and that his claim will be considered after conclusion of the Court case. Hence the instant petition.
2. The facts leading to this writ petition are; being one of the dependents of the deceased government employee, petitioner submitted an application dated 15.06.2022 for appointment on compassionate grounds, along with the required documents.
2.1. During the pendency of his aforesaid application, one Jasvinder Singh complained vide his letter dated 31.05.2022 that petitioner cannot be granted appointment due to the pending FIR (criminal case arising there from) against him, as noted above. Jasvinder Singh is the complainant in the FIR.
2.3. Resultantly, vide office letter dated 19.09.2022, assailed herein, the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, informed the petitioner that in terms of circular letter dated 04.12.2019 issued by the Personnel Department, State of Rajasthan, he was found ineligible.
3. The stand taken by the respondents, inter alia, is that, in the application seeking compassionate appointment, the petitioner himself did not disclose the fact of the criminal case registered against him. Instead, Jaswinder Singh, the complainant who lodged the FIR, raised the objection by informing the department about the pendency of the criminal case against him.
3.1. It is stated that charges were framed against the petitioner under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 324/34, and 325/34 of the IPC on 18.04.2019. Trial is currently pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur. Thus, in accordance with the Circular dated 04.12.2019 issued by the Department of Personnel, appointment to the petitioner has been rightly declined. Writ petition be, therefore, dismissed.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the case file.
5. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the prescribed proforma, to be filled up as the job application, submitted by the petitioner, there was no column in the proforma which required the petitioner to disclose the information about his involvement in any criminal case. Thus, there is/was no concealment on the part of the petitioner. In any case, mere pendency of a criminal case does not per-se render the petitioner ineligible for appointment. More so, when it does not affect the nature and dignity of the post for which he sought appointment.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents argues on the lines of the stand in their written reply in support of their action. He seeks dismissal of the petition.
7. Having heard both sides and perused the record, I am of the opinion that the petition merits being allowed. Let us see how, by recording reasons thereof, after analysis and discussion of the applicable law and interpretation of circular dated 04.12.2019, ibid.
8. First and foremost, I am unable to accept the respondents’ contention that, owing to misrepresentation or concealment, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, because at the time of submitting the application for compassionate appointment he did not disclose the fact of the criminal case registered against him.
9. Indisputably, the application for compassionate appointment was required to be submitted in the proforma prescribed by the respondents. The proforma for application had no column or question to elicit information about the candid
The mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disqualify a candidate for compassionate appointment; each case must be assessed on its own merits.
Suppression of criminal case information does not automatically disqualify compassionate appointment; objective evaluation required.
The rejection of a candidate's appointment based solely on a pending criminal case, without considering the nature of the allegations or the application form's requirements, is arbitrary and unsustai....
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.
Suppression in attestation form requires knowledge of fact; for low-level non-sensitive posts, non-disclosure of unaware pending trivial criminal case (acquitted) not material, does not axiomatically....
Trivial offenses post-acquittal do not automatically render a candidate unfit for employment, allowing discretion in public employment decisions.
Suppression of trivial motor accident case pending at attestation does not justify termination for GDS post post-acquittal; employer discretion requires considering suitability.
The concealment of a pending criminal case during the employment application process can justify termination of services, as integrity and character are critical for positions within the judicial sys....
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
