Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed challenging the order dated 6 July 2020 by which the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Junior Assistant was rejected, the Single Judge Bench of Karunesh Singh Pawar, J., held that the rejection of candidature solely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case, which had been truthfully disclosed by the petitioner and arose out of a matrimonial dispute with general allegations, was unsustainable. Quashing the impugned order, the Court directed the authorities to issue the appointment letter to the petitioner.
Background
The U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission advertised vacancies for the posts of Junior Assistant and Store Keeper. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Assistant, qualified in the selection process, and was allotted the Department of Cane and Sugar Commissioner, U.P., through the online Department Allotment System. He was also referred for medical examination and was found medically fit. However, the petitioner was denied appointment after verification revealed the pendency of a criminal case under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The petitioner contended that the case arose from a matrimonial dispute between his elder brother and his wife and that he had already disclosed the pendency of the case in accordance with the relevant clauses of the advertisement.
Analysis
The Court observed that other than the pendency of the criminal case which was duly disclosed by the petitioner, there was no other adverse material against him, and the impugned order was passed solely on account of the pendency of the said criminal case.
Relying on the principles laid in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, the Court noted that where a candidate truthfully discloses the pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, the employer may, in appropriate circumstances, appoint the candidate subject to the outcome of the case. The Court further found that the FIR contained general and sweeping allegations against all family members without assigning any specific role to the petitioner and that the dispute arose out of a domestic matrimonial conflict and that the offences alleged were not sufficiently grave to render the petitioner unsuitable for public employment, particularly when the allegations had no bearing on the duties attached to the post.
The Court also referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra) while discussing Commr. of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644, where it was emphasised that youthful indiscretions and minor offences should not result in branding a person as a criminal for life and that the approach should be reformative rather than punitive. In that context, the Supreme Court had illustratively referred to the character “Jean Valjean” from Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables to highlight that minor infractions, particularly those arising from personal or family circumstances, should not lead to lifelong adverse consequences.
Decision
Applying these principles, the Court held that the offences alleged do not constitute valid ground to render the petitioner unsuitable for public employment, and directed Respondent 2, to issue appointment letter to the petitioner, subject to the outcome of criminal appeal/trial if any.
[Rakesh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 1238, decided on 23-3-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Manish Chaudhary, Chandra Prakash Pal, Deepika Srivastava, Mamta Singh, Prashant Jaiswal, Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, Shivendra Pratap Singh
For the respondent: C.S.C.
