Mere Imposition Of Fine Under Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance Not 'Moral Turpitude' To Deny Appointment: High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that imposition of fine for an offence under the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) does not amount to moral turpitude based on which a candidate could be denying public employment. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 255]

The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur held that where a candidate was convicted, decision to deny public employment could not be taken mechanically. Rather, the appointing authority is obligated to examine such cases to see whether the offences for which the candidate was convicted involved moral turpitude or violence.

For context, the Court was hearing a petition challenging State's rejection of petitioner's candidature for compassionate appointment, owing to his past conviction under the Ordinance pursuant to which he was fined Rs. 100/-.

Petitioner's father was working with the respondent department, when he passed away. Petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment which was approved. However, his joining was not accepted based on the order of Director, Secondary Education, who cancelled his appointment letter owing to the reason mentioned above. This order was challenged.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the order was contrary to the circular dated 04/12/2019 issued by the Department of Personnel (the “Circular”) which provided that public appointment could be denied only in cases where a candidate was convicted for offences involving moral turpitude or violence.

It was submitted that denying appointment for such a petty offence would adversely affect petitioner's future and also negate the opportunity for reform, branding him as a criminal for life.

Reference was also made to the coordinate bench decision in Alok Garg v State of Rajasthan & Ors. that relied upon the Supreme Court ruling in Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana, to hold that,

“imposition of a fine upon an accused pleading guilty under the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance does not constitute moral turpitude, and therefore, denial of appointment on such a ground cannot be sustained.”

After hearing the contentions, the Court agreed with the arguments put forth on behalf of the petitioner. It was held,

“where a candidate has been convicted, the decision to deny appointment is not to be taken in a mechanical manner. Rather, a duty is cast upon the appointing authority to examine such cases carefully, and unless the offence for which the candidate has been convicted involves moral turpitude or violence, appointment may be granted.”

Accordingly, it was observed that denial of appointment to an otherwise eligible candidate could not be sustained on such a ground.

The Court directed the State to permit the petitioner to join the service.

Title: Virendra Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 255

Click Here To Read/Download Order