Pending criminal charges do not bar appointment unless proven guilty, affirming rights under Articles 14 and 21.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner herein seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order and/or direction to the respondents to consider his candidature for appointment on the post of Cooperative Inspector pursuant to the selection result dated 13.07.2021 (Annexure-6) pursuant to the advertisement dated 02.04.2018. Claim is that despite being otherwise meritorious and eligible, he has been unfairly denied appointment due to pending criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial dispute between him and his estranged wife. Criminal proceedings were instituted at her instance. Less meritorious candidates have been appointed as per the order dated 24.12.2021.

2. The facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner had got married with Dr. Ruchika Gupta on 26.02.2020, but their relationship could not remain cordial. Their differences led to filing an FIR No. 67/2020 by his wife at Mahila Thana Police Station, Bhopal, for alleged offences under Sections 498A & 506/34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2.1. Meanwhile, the petitioner participated in the selection process and was successful on the post in question. Subsequently, he was required to give his options for postings and other details, for which he submitted his prescribed form on 07.09.2020. In this form (Annexure-1), there was no column to give any detail declaring anything about pendency of criminal case against the candidate. In the said FIR challan was also filed by the police on28.12.2020, but the trial had yet not commenced.

2.2. However, when he was called for an interview on 30.06.2021, an attestation form was to be filled up for verification by the Police Department. In the attestation form there was a column No.12 with regard to furnishing information as to whether the candidate was ever convicted by any Court. Since the petitioner was not convicted, he left the column No.12 blank in the attestation form.

2.3. The RPSC declared the final result on 13.07.2021, in which the petitioner stood at merit No. 534. Notwithstanding, vide an order dated 24.12.2021, based on recommendations of the RPSC, in list of appointees’ name of petitioner was missing. Less meritorious candidates than the petitioner were given appointment. The petitioner approached the respondents by filing representations. It was then that he came to know that due to lodging of an FIR against him by his estranged wife, appointment has not been given. Hence, this petition.

3. The stand taken by the respondents is that in the attestation form neither the petitioner denied being convicted nor the petitioner stated the details of pending criminal case. It is submitted that Point No.1(vii) of the Circular dated 04.12.2019 issued by the Department of Personnel with regard to character verification of candidates clearly stated that any candidate against whom a criminal case under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code is pending investigation/under trial, he/she will not be entitled for appointment.

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 very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the charges have been framed nor the petitioner has been convicted in that FIR. He further submits that petitioner has not concealed any fact regarding having any criminal case pending against him because it is for the first time that an information was sought by the Commission regarding conviction of a candidate in any criminal case and since there was no conviction against the petitioner, he left the column blank in the attestation form.

5.1. Learned counsel relies on a co-ordinate Bench judgment rendered in Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [2016 (3) WLC 345] wherein, it was held that on account of pendency of criminal case the petitioner cannot be denied appointment. In the case of Mukesh Kumar (supra), the co-ordinate bench of this Court after considerin