Civil Services Candidates Require Impeccable Character; Acquittal On Benefit Of Doubt Not Automatic Clean Chit: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court upheld the rejection of petitioner's candidature for Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services, in light of 2 (two) criminal cases against her alleging extortion after impersonating as public servant, that resulted in acquittal based on benefit of doubt.
While agreeing that a person could not be denied public employment only on the ground of pending petty criminal case or acquittal in such a case, the bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain opined that the suitability of an individual had to be examined considering overall facts and circumstances of each case.
For context, the petitioner had participated in the recruitment process for Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services, advertised by RPSC. She qualified the written examination and was called for interview but not given appointment based on two criminal antecedents.
Both the cases were identical in nature, involving offences of impersonation as public servant, terrorizing the victim and extorting money. Even though the petitioner was acquitted in both the cases, the records indicated that the acquittal was not honourable, rather by extending benefit of doubt.
It was argued by the State that a person seeking public appointment had to be of utmost rectitude with impeccable character and integrity. It was submitted that the manner in which the alleged offences were committed by the petitioner were sufficient to discard her candidature.
After hearing the contention, the Court observed that there was no straight jacket formula to fit in every case. Every case was dependent on its own facts and circumstances, and the court had to take a holistic view based on the objective criteria.
“A person cannot be denied a public employment only on the ground of pending petty criminal case or acquittal in a petty criminal case. We agree with the proposition that employment is a source of livelihood and denial of employment is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but at the same time, the suitability of the individual has to be examined considering the overall facts and circumstances of each case.”
The Court took into account the nature of the offences, the fact that both the cases were of similar nature, as well as the acquittal not being honourable but merely on account of benefit of doubt.
In this background, it was held that the petitioner had failed to make out a case for interference. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Title: Sarita Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 236