IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN MONGA, J.
Shanker Lal Jat S/o Shri Kailash Chandra Jat - Appellant
Versus
The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16518/2021
Decided on : 19-03-2025
(A) Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 - Circular dated 15.07.2016 and 04.12.2019 - Appointment of Teacher Grade-III - Petitioner selected but denied joining due to pending criminal case - Court found no concealment or misrepresentation in application - Reliance on superseded circular was misplaced - Court emphasized the need for objective consideration of each case. (Paras 9, 10, 14, 15)
(B) Employment Law - Character verification - Employer's discretion in assessing suitability based on criminal antecedents - Acquittal in criminal case strengthens petitioner's claim - Court directed to allow joining subject to availability of post. (Paras 13, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, selected for Teacher Grade-III, was denied joining due to a pending criminal case under IPC Sections 406 and 498A, despite being acquitted. Respondents argued reliance on a circular prohibiting appointment of candidates with criminal antecedents.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondents failed to show objective consideration of the petitioner's case and relied on a superseded circular.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the denial of appointment based on a pending criminal case and the application of the relevant circulars.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondents' reliance on the superseded circular was erroneous and emphasized the need for a case-by-case assessment of candidates' suitability.
Result: Writ petition allowed, directing the petitioner to be allowed to join duty subject to post availability.
ORDER :
1. Petitioner herein, aspirant to become a Teacher, inter-alia, seeks issuance of appropriate writ, order and / or direction commanding the respondents to allow him to join on the post of Teacher Grade-III with all consequential benefits pursuant to advertisement dated 11.09.2017.
2. Brief facts first. Respondent No.2 issued an advertisement on 11.09.2017 for the selection of 9,178 posts of Teacher Grade-III Level-II Science & Math under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 for the Non-TSP area. Petitioner, meeting the qualifications, applied in the OBC Non-creamy category and was successful in the selection process.
2.1 He was issued an appointment order on 28.10.2021, placing him at Sr. No. 4 for a posting at the Govt. Upper Primary School in Barmer. However, the petitioner was not allowed to join on duty. The reason provided was an ongoing criminal case under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC, despite the petitioner’s affidavit confirming that he has not been convicted by any Court. Hence, the present petition.
3. To oppose the petition, stand taken inter alia in the reply filed by the respondents is as under:-
“3. That it is humbly submitted that the petitioner stated in his writ petition that his candidature was wrongly been rejected by the answering respondent and he is liable to be appointed on the said post. It is pertinent to submit here that the petitioner in the writ petition has clearly averred the fact at para no.12 of the present writ petition about the police verification and pendency of the same before the learned court. An FIR bearing no.99/2020 was lodged against the petitioner himself under the Section 406 and 498A Of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 at the police station Phulia, Bhilwara, Rajasthan. It is also the admitted position in the pleadings of the petitioner that the case is still pending consideration/adjudication/trial before the competent Court (Anex.10). It is pertinent to submit here that mere inclusion of the name of petitioner in the appointment list does not create any right in favour of petitioner. The appointment order itself is provisional one and will only come into force upon completion of police verification of the candidates. The candidature of the petitioner has been assessed & considered till his non-consideration on the said post strictly in accordance with guidelines/circular governing the field.
4. That answering respondent has not considered the candidature of the petitioner on ground of pending criminal case against the petitioner and the amended advertisement is governed by the circular dated 15.07.2016. The circular dated 15.07.2016 specifically deals with cases of those candidates against whom pending trial is there in one or the other registered FIR's. The petitioner in the present writ petition is having the FIR registered under Section 406 & 498A of IPC. Hence, his candidature has been rejected as per the circular and the conditions mentioned in the appointment order.
5. That the respondents most respectfully submits that the present writ petition is just an abuse of process of law as no grounds is available to the petitioner for challenging the recruitment process as conducted by the respondent department. It is pertinent to submit here that the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected in lieu/pursuance of circular dated 15.07.2016 wherein the specific conditions have been mentioned in the said circular wherein if an aspirant is having criminal antecedents, the appointment could not be given. It is pertinent to submit here that the circular dated 15.07.2016 is not under challenge in the instant writ petition and even otherwise as per the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is upto the discretion of the employer to deny giving employment on the basis of eventualities of criminal trial / conviction /acquittal of a given aspirant. Hon'ble Apex Court further mandatorily directed for consideration of Government order / instructions / rules at the time of taking such decisions. Th



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.
Acquittal in criminal cases does not guarantee employment; employers can consider a candidate's criminal history when making hiring decisions.
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 ....
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.
Acquittal in criminal cases does not automatically guarantee employment; discretion in hiring must consider the nature of the offence and circumstances of the acquittal.
Acquittal in criminal cases does not automatically disqualify a candidate for employment; character assessments must consider the nature of offences and the presumption of innocence.
A candidate's truthful disclosure of a pending criminal case does not justify denial of appointment if there is no evidence of concealment or misrepresentation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.