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 unsustainable.

Order :

(ARUN MONGA, J.)

1. Petitioner herein, aspirant to become Nursing Officer, inter alia, seeks quashing of impugned communication dated 20.03.2025 alongwith minutes of meeting dated 05.03.2025, vide which his candidature for the said post pursuant to advertisement dated 05.05.2023, was rejected.

2. Briefly speaking, relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are that the petitioner applied for the post of Nursing Officer under the ST category as per the advertisement dated 05.05.2023, which outlined a selection process based on 70% weightage for qualifications and 30% for experience. He had served as Nurse Grade-II on a contract basis at CHC, Mirjewala, for 1,201 days and obtained an experience certificate on 23.05.2023. His document verification was conducted on 07.10.2023, and he was placed at Sr. No. 1853 in the final selection list published on 06.12.2024 with a score of 76.128%. He was subsequently appointed as a Nursing Officer on 09.01.2025 and posted at PHC Hindumalkot, Sri Ganganagar, at Sr. No. 1864 in the appointment list.

2.2. On 05.04.2022, the petitioner lodged a complaint at P.S. Matilirathan, Sri Ganganagar, alleging that Gurpreet Singh and others wrongfully harvested his ‘Kinnu’ Crop, causing significant loss. When he confronted them on 29.03.2022, they assaulted him, resulting in FIR No. 0049/2022 dated 05.04.2022 under Sections 341 and 323 IPC against the accused-Sharwan Kumar.

2.3. In retaliation, Smt. Krishna Devi, wife of accused-Shrawan Kumar, lodged FIR No. 50/2022, dated 05.04.2022, under Sections 447 and 354 IPC, at P.S. Matilirathan, Sri Ganganagar, alleging that the petitioner misbehaved with her on 29.03.2022. Consequently, a charge sheet was filed, and charges were framed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, on 11.08.2023.

2.4. Following his appointment, the petitioner underwent medical and police verification. The Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, issued a verification certificate on 16.01.2025, confirming the pending FIR No. 50/2022 against him.

2.5. On 14.01.2025, the petitioner requested respondent No. 4 to grant him joining. However, a three-member committee, chaired by respondent No.4, decided on 05.03.2025 to deny his appointment per the Department of Personnel’s circular dated 04.12.2019. Hence, this petition.

3. Relevant stand taken by the respondents in their reply is as follows:-

3.1. The petitioner’s appointment was denied due to the pendency of a criminal case registered against him under Sections 447 and 354 IPC in FIR No. 50/2022 at P.S. Matilirathan, Sri Ganganagar. The case, involving allegations of outraging the modesty of a woman, is currently under trial.

3.2. As per the Department of Personnel (DoP) Circular dated 04.12.2019, candidates involved in offences of moral turpitude, including those related to outraging a woman's modesty, are ineligible for government employment.

3.3. The petitioner’s pending criminal case under Section 354 IPC falls under moral turpitude, rendering him ineligible as per the DoP guidelines. Moreover, he failed to disclose the pending case in his recruitment application, violating the recruitment guidelines and further justifying the denial of his appointment.

3.4. The CMHO, Sri Ganganagar, acted within legal and administrative discretion in refusing the petitioner’s joining, in public interest and in tune with the DoP Circular, ensuring that individuals with pending cases of moral turpitude are not appointed to sensitive government positions, particularly in the healthcare sector. Hence petition deserves dismissal.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the case record as well as annexures appended therewith.

5. It is pertinent to note here that the allegation of concealment/misrepresentation levelled against the petitioner qua non-disclosure of the criminal case is totally misplaced. A perusal of the prescribed online application form (Annexure-8) reveals that the prescribed proforma itself did not ma