Pending criminal cases, particularly of a trivial nature linked to family disputes, do not automatically disqualify candidates for public employment if disclosed truthfully during the recruitment process.

JUDGMENT :

KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 06.07.2020, whereby the petitioner has been denied appointment to the post of Junior Assistant by respondent No. 2 on the ground that a report was received by the District Collector, Lakhimpur Kheri, vide letter dated 15.03.2019, stating that a criminal case, being Case No. 10659 of 2010 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Lakhimpur Kheri, is pending against the petitioner. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that 3,258 vacancies for the post of Junior Assistant and 18 vacancies for the post of Store Keeper were advertised by the U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Assistant, was declared successful, and was thereafter allotted the Department of Cane and Sugar Commissioner, U.P. through the online Department Allotment System. A revised allotment letter issued by the Commission is on record as Annexure No. 4.

3. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2, vide letter dated 12.02.2019, referred the petitioner to the Chief Medical Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri, for medical examination, and the petitioner was found medically fit, as per report dated 18.02.2019.

4. It is submitted that prior to the advertisement, a matrimonial dispute arose between the petitioner's elder brother, Chandra Pal, and his wife, Kamini, in relation to which an FIR being Case Crime No. 5467 of 2007 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged, wherein the petitioner was implicated as a co-accused. It is submitted that, in compliance with Clauses 15(9) and 15(14) of Advertisement No. 04/2016, the petitioner had duly disclosed the pendency of the said criminal case.

5. After allotment, the petitioner submitted a representation before respondent No. 2, which was decided on 20.05.2020 (Annexure No. 1), whereby the petitioner was denied appointment solely on the ground of pendency of the aforesaid criminal case, in which the petitioner is only a co-accused and his elder brother is the main accused.

6. Learned Standing Counsel opposed the petition and submitted that due to the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner was not found suitable for government service, and his candidature was rightly rejected in view of his criminal antecedents as revealed in verification.

7. Perused the record.

8. A perusal of the impugned order (Annexure No. 1) shows that, except for the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case, which was duly disclosed by the petitioner in terms of Clauses 15(9) and 15(14) of Advertisement No. 04/2016, no adverse material has been found against the petitioner. The petitioner has also been found medically fit. The impugned order, therefore, appears to have been passed solely on account of the pendency of the said criminal case.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India , (2016) 8 SCC 471 , while considering the issue of pending criminal cases at the stage of recruitment, laid down guidelines in paragraph 38, which is as under:-

"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to