The court ruled that appointment denial based on criminal charges requires individual examination of moral turpitude, not mere reliance on FIRs or charge-sheets.

                                                                                                                                                                                     Order

Reportable

24/09/2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the respondent-State may be directed to issue an order of appointment in favour of the petitioner on the post as per his merit position in view of the recommendations made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to ‘the RPSC’) in pursuance of the competitive examination held in furtherance of the advertisement dated 20.07.2021.

3. Briefly, the facts noted in the present writ petition are that, while working on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-I at the Government Senior Secondary School, Choudhariya Jaisalmer, the petitioner applied for the Rajastahan State & Subordinate Service Examination, conducted in pursuance of the advertisement dated 20.07.2021, for direct recruitment on the post of State Services. The petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination and after clearing the same, he appeared in the main examination conducted by the RPSC. The petitioner being meritorious RPSC called him for an interview, which was held on 17.07.2023. The result of the selection was declared by the RPSC on 17.11.2023 and the petitioner’s name was included in the list of successful candidates with merit No.1650.

4. Before declaration of the result by the RPSC, an FIR was registered against the petitioner being FIR No.31/2020 under Sections 498(A), 323 & 34 of the IPC. The FIR pertains to a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife and because of the marital discord, the petitioner has also filed a divorce petition, which is pending consideration before the competent Court. In the criminal case filed by the petitioner’s wife, after investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed by the Police under Sections 498(A), 323 & 34 of the IPC. In these circumstances, when the petitioner did not receive the appointment letter from the State of Rajasthan, he approached the respondents and was informed that because of his involvement in the criminal case, his appointment has been cancelled and, therefore, no appointment order has been issued in his favour. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in the matrimonial case, the petitioner has been falsely implicated and, therefore, the situation is beyond his control as the Police after investigation filed the charge-sheet. He further submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the criminal case do not constitute the offence of a moral turpitude. He also submits that merely on the basis of marital discord between the petitioner and his wife, the criminal case has been filed and, therefore, on the basis of filing of such criminal case, the petitioner cannot be denied appointment by the respondents in pursuance of his selection. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have failed to consider the case of the petitioner in the correct perspective in the facts and circumstances mentioned in the charge-sheet and the circular/notification dated 04.12.2019 issued by the State Government.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that a close reading of the circular/notification dated 04.12.2019 indicates that the respondents are required to meticulously examine the case of the petitioner taking into consideration the allegation in charge- sheet and only then the decision should have been taken as to whether the petitioner is entitled for appointment or not? However, the above stated exercise has not been undertaken/carried out in the case of the petitioner and straightaway a decision has been taken that because of the involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case, he is not entitled to be appointed in the State Services.

7. Learned counsel for the pe