Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition challenging the State Government’s refusal to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner after he cleared prelims, mains, interview and was listed as a successful candidate by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), citing the criminal case as the reason, a single-judge bench of Vinit Kumar Mathur, J., held that the State’s mechanical rejection of the petitioner’s appointment without proper examination of the facts was improper and directed the respondents to reassess the petitioner’s eligibility for the post in light of the guidelines from the circular.
In the instant matter, the petitioner, a Teacher (Grade-III, Level-I), applied for the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Service Examination (2021) conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC). After passing both the preliminary and main exams, the petitioner was interviewed on 17-07-2023 and listed as a successful candidate with merit No. 1650.
However, the petitioner was previously charged under Sections 498-A, 323, and 34 of the IPC in a matrimonial dispute with his wife and charge sheet was filed in this criminal case, therefore, the respondent-State did not issue an appointment letter, citing the pending charges against the petitioner.
The petitioner argued that the criminal charges stem from a matrimonial dispute and do not constitute acts of moral turpitude. It was contended that the circular dated 04-12-2019 issued by the State Government requires meticulous examination of the facts and charges before denying an appointment, which was not done in the present case. It was further contended that the impugned circular also stated that even a conviction need not automatically disqualify a candidate unless it involves moral turpitude or acts of violence aimed at overthrowing the government.
However, the respondents opposed the petition and asserted that since the petitioner booked under Section 498A IPC (offense related to dowry), as per the circular, he is ineligible for appointment. It was contended that no formal decision or speaking order has been passed by the authorities regarding the denial of the appointment.
The Court opined that “a person is not entitled for appointment in the State Services, if his acts constitute an act of moral turpitude and the same could affect the work negatively on the post for which he is being appointed.” The Court stated that circumstances of the conviction should be taken into account and if the same involve no moral turpitude or association with crimes of violence or with a movement which has its object to overthrow by violent means of a Government as established by law, the mere conviction need not be regarded as a disqualification.
The Court noted that in the present case, the petitioner had been selected in the competitive examination and that the only reason for denying his appointment was his involvement in a criminal case. The court emphasized that the respondents had failed to apply their minds and mechanically denied the appointment without examining whether the criminal charges involved moral turpitude, as required under the 04-12-2019 circular.
“In the present case, since the respondents have not examined the case of the petitioner in light of the circular/notification dated 04.12.2019 and have directly reached to the conclusion that since the petitioner is involved in the criminal case, he is not entitled for a Government job in pursuance of the selection, is de-hors the law.”
The Court emphasised that each case involving pending criminal charges must be scrutinized to determine if the act/offense constitutes moral turpitude. The Court highlighted that each criminal case must be scrutinized on its facts before disqualifying a candidate, and mere involvement in a case does not automatically negate a candidate’s appointment.
The Court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s case, taking into account the guidelines set in the circular/notification dated 04-12-2019. The Court instructed the respondents to issue a speaking order after a detailed review within four weeks, and if the petitioner’s actions did not involve moral turpitude, issue the appointment letter.
[Dana Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 2891, Decided on 24-09-2024]
Mr. Vivek Firoda, Mr. Jayram Saran, Mr. Bharat Singh Rathore, Counsel for the Petitioner
Ms. Mehali Mehta for Mr. Manish Patel, AAG, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
