A pending criminal case does not automatically disqualify a candidate for employment unless it directly impacts their suitability for the role.

Order :

(ARUN MONGA, J.)

1. Petitioner herein, is before this Court, inter-alia, seeks issuance of appropriate writ, order and / or direction commanding the respondents to accord him appointment on the post of Technical Helper-III, pursuant to advertisement dated 04.02.2022 (Annex.1) with all consequential benefits.

2. Brief facts first. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL) issued an advertisement dated 04.02.2022, inviting applications for the recruitment of Technical Helper-III in both TSP and Non- TSP areas. The petitioner, being fully eligible, applied for the same. In the online written examination, petitioner secured 82.0000 marks, which were subsequently normalized to 80.36679 marks.

2.1 After being successful in the aforesaid examination, the petitioner was called for document verification on 19.01.2023, wherein he submitted all original documents alongwith an affidavit that disclosed pendency of a criminal case against him.

2.2 Despite the petitioner being included in the select list, JVVNL issued the impugned order dated 03.03.2023, appointing all other selected candidates, but excluding the petitioner.

2.4 The State Government has issued a circular dated 15.07.2016, which bars the appointment of candidates who conceal the fact of being involved in criminal cases, particularly those involving moral turpitude, based on guidelines set by the Apex Court and High Courts.

2.5 The petitioner was implicated in an incident on 27.09.2020, leading to an FIR No.0252/2020, dated 28.09.2020, lodged against 230 individuals, including him, at P.S. Dobda, Dungarpur for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 283, 269, 270, 336 & 188 of IPC. Following the investigation, a challan was filed against the accused. However, charges have not yet been framed against the petitioner. Being aggrieved against the impugned order dated 03.03.2023 (Annexure-06), petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant petition.

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

“3. That the averments contained in para 3 of the writ petition are denied in the manner as alleged by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination on provisional basis and his candidature was not determined by the respondent Nigam, further the successful candidates were provisionally called by the respondent Nigam for verification of documents to ascertained their candidature.

4. That the averments contained in para 4 of the writ petition are not disputed so far it relates to preparation of merit list of successful candidate 1.5 time of the vacancies to call for document verification to ascertained their candidature and to select the successful candidature as per provisions of rules. It is submitted that merely calling candidate for document verification does not create any right in favour of the petitioner.

It is further submitted that petitioner was required to declare that no criminal case is pending against him or he was not convicted by any court. That pursuant to which the petitioner has submitted an affidavit dated 17.01.2023 (Annexure-4) wherein, he has mentioned that criminal case is pending against him before JM Court, Dungarpur bearing Case No.252/2020 for an offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 283, 269, 270, 336 & 188 of IPC. It is humbly submitted that for appointment in Nigam a candidate is required to have sound character and in instant case petitioner was involved in a criminal case and criminal proceeding was pending against him in the court.”

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and perused the case file along with the annexures appended therewith.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the review committee has wrongly withheld the appointment of the petitioner only on the sole ground of mere registration of an FIR. He argues that the FIR in question has been lodged on general allegations against 230 persons and no specific allega