Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Baba Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ A. No. 12055 Of 2024
Decided On : 30-09-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Employment - Denial of appointment based on pending criminal case - The petitioner was denied appointment as Assistant Boring Technician due to a complaint case pending against him under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act - The court emphasized that mere pendency of a complaint, especially arising from matrimonial disputes, should not automatically disqualify a candidate from public employment. (Paras 23, 30)
(B) Employment Law - Character Verification - The court held that the District Magistrate failed to fulfill his duty in verifying the petitioner's character, merely reporting the pendency of a complaint without assessing its implications on the petitioner's suitability for employment. (Paras 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Boring Technician and was selected but denied appointment due to a pending criminal case against him, which he was unaware of at the time of application.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the Chief Engineer's order and directed him to reconsider the petitioner's case for appointment.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be denied employment due to a complaint case arising from a matrimonial dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the mere existence of a complaint case, particularly of a trivial nature, should not bar a candidate from public employment, emphasizing the need for a nuanced approach to character verification.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(J.J. Munir, J.)
This writ petition is directed against an order of the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, U.P., Lucknow dated 16.02.2024, rejecting the petitioner’s representation dated Nil (received on 15.01.2024), in compliance with the orders of this Court dated 08.01.2024 passed in Writ - A No. 21694 of 2023, requiring the Chief Engineer to consider the petitioner’s claim for appointment, already denied on ground of pendency of a criminal case against him.
2. A notice of motion was issued by a detailed order on 12.08.2024, in response whereto, a personal affidavit has been filed by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, U.P., Lucknow, respondent No. 3. Another personal affidavit dated 24.08.2024 has been filed by the District Magistrate, Mirzapur, respondent No. 2. Both these affidavits shall be read as counter affidavits in the writ petition.
3. Ms. Monika Arya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, forgoes her right to file any further counter affidavit, whereas Mr. Chandan Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, waives his right to file a rejoinder.
4. Parties have exchanged affidavits.
5. Admit.
6. Heard forthwith.
7. Heard Mr. Chandan Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Monika Arya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
8. An advertisement, being Advertisement No. 06-Exam/2019 for the post of an Assistant Boring Technician was issued by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission, Lucknow, which was published on 13.08.2019 for the recruitment of Assistant Boring Technicians in the Minor Irrigation Department of the State. Selections to the post of Assistant Boring Technician were to be made through an examination called the Assistant Boring Technician (General Selection) Competitive Examination, 2019. The petitioner, being eligible for the position of an Assistant Boring Technician, applied for it. The Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission, Lucknow,[‘Commission’ for short] issued an admit card to the petitioner, inviting him to participate in the competitive examination.
9. The petitioner appeared in the examination conducted by the Commission on 03.07.2022. The result of the examination was declared, wherein, admittedly, the petitioner turned out successful, standing at Serial No. 108 of the Select List published by the Commission. The petitioner was called for verification of his documents, but, when he appeared for the purpose, he was denied issue of an appointment letter on the ground that there was a criminal case pending against him, wherein, a summoning order had been passed. The case was said to be a complaint case under Sections 498A, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,[‘IPC’ for short] and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961[‘Act of 1961’ for short], Police Station Chunar, District Mirzapur, pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate at Mirzapur. The petitioner has averred in paragraph No. 11 of the writ petition that he was unaware of the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case until time when the summoning order was passed and served upon him.
10. Despite request, when the petitioner was not considered for appointment by the respondents, he instituted Writ - A No. 21694 of 2023, praying that a mandamus be issued, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s candidature for appointment as an Assistant Boring Technician, based on the result of his selection. This Court disposed of that writ petition by means of an order dated 08.01.2024, permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation, ventilating all his grievances before the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department within a period of two weeks from the date of the order, along with a certified copy thereof. The Chief Engineer was ordered to decide the petitioner’s representation strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of the petitioner lodging the requisite represe
The mere pendency of a criminal complaint, especially from matrimonial disputes, should not disqualify a candidate from public employment.
Character verification for public service must consider the nature of past allegations and acquittals, rejecting mechanical disqualification based solely on prior criminal cases.
The cancellation of a candidate's selection based solely on the registration of a criminal case, without evidence of complicity, is unjustified and reflects a lack of proper consideration of the fact....
The suppression of a pending criminal case does not automatically disqualify a candidate; the nature of the offence and the candidate's overall character must be considered in recruitment decisions.
Non-disclosure of trivial criminal cases does not disqualify a candidate for government service; the appointing authority must consider the nature of the case and the candidate's overall suitability.
The court held that the non-disclosure of a past criminal case requires careful evaluation of circumstances, and automatic cancellation of appointment is arbitrary.
Mere pendency of a criminal case does not disqualify a candidate for public service if the allegations are trivial and disclosed during the application process.
Non-disclosure of a trivial criminal case does not automatically disqualify a candidate for government service; the appointing authority must consider the nature of the case and the candidate's overa....
The court upheld the discretion of the State Government to deny appointment based on the pendency of serious criminal charges, emphasizing the importance of suitability for sensitive public service r....
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
