Statute/Rules Allowing Employer To Deny Appointment Only Due To Non-Disclosure Of Criminal Cases Would Be Unjust: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has observed that any statute/rules/instructions that empower an employer to deny appointment to a candidate only because of non-disclosure of criminal cases would be unjust and unreasonable. A bench of Justice Salil Rai also opined that any decision by the employer denying appointment only because of such non-disclosure would also be contrary to the constitutional principle of fairness and non-arbitrariness in administrative actions. “Broad- brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification would be unjust and it would be arbitrary and unreasonable to disqualify a candidate merely because of non-disclosure of a criminal case which was trivial in nature and related to a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered him unfit for post in question,” the Court further remarked. The Court added that in cases of a candidate's non-disclosure of a criminal case, factors such as the nature and seriousness of the charges, the outcome of the trial (including whether acquittal was due to technical grounds or a clean acquittal), and the candidate's socio-economic status must be considered when assessing their suitability for appointment. “The report of the District Magistrate regarding the character and antecedents of the candidate and also the recommendations of the District Magistrate are relevant documents which have to be considered by the appointing authority while deciding the suitability of a candidate for appointment,” the Court said. Importantly, the single judge also said that in a case trivial in nature or for a petty offence, the employer may ignore suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse if the applicant is not otherwise unfit for appointment. These observations were made by the court while quashing an order of the Superintendent of Police, Ballia of rejecting the claim of one Ashish Kumar Rajbhar (petitioner) for appointment as Constable on the ground that he had concealed the criminal case registered against him. The Court also directed the State authorities, i.e., the Secretary, Department of Home (Police Section), UP Govt, the Secretary, U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, the SP (Personnel) Uttar Pradesh Police Headquarter and the SP of District Ballia to ensure that appropriate appointment letter is issued to the petitioner appointing him on the post of Constable in pursuance to the recruitment notified in 2015 and the petitioner shall be allowed to join as such. The Court also clarified that the petitioner would be entitled to service benefits, including pay and other allowances, as well as seniority, as a consequence of his appointment only with effect from the date of his joining. The case in brief Rajbhar (petitioner) was selected for a constable position in the Uttar Pradesh Police in pursuance to the advertisement issued in 2015 by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board. The selected candidates were asked to file an affidavit disclosing whether any criminal case had been registered against them or was pending consideration in any court. The petitioner submitted his affidavit in June 2018, stating that no criminal case had been registered or pending against him. However, he later discovered that a criminal case had been registered against him in April 2017, which was not mentioned in the affidavit. The petitioner subsequently filed a second affidavit disclosing the fact that a Criminal Case had been registered against him, but he was not named in the charge sheet. Now, despite a recommendation from the District Magistrate for his appointment, the Superintendent of Police, Ballia, rejected his claim on the grounds that the criminal case was concealed in the initial affidavit. The order was passed relying on Clause 8 (Ja) of the Office Instructions (dated May 22, 2018), which provides that a candidate would be declared unfit for appointment if he had concealed or made any misrepresentation regarding any criminal case registered against him or regarding any trial, acquittal, or conviction in a criminal case or if the candidate had been convicted for any offence involving moral turpitude. The petitioner challenged the SP's order before the High Court, and the HC directed the SP to reconsider the matter in accordance with the law. However, the claim was also rejected in the subsequent order (March 2019). Challenging this second rejection of his claim, Rajbhar moved the HC with the instant writ plea. It was his primary case that his failure to disclose the criminal case pending against him did not amount to active misrepresentation or an intention to deceive the authorities. Therefore, the respondents could not have legally denied the petitioner's appointment as Constable because of the non-disclosure of the criminal case. It was further argued that, in any case, the criminal case was trivial in nature...

Statute/Rules Allowing Employer To Deny Appointment Only Due To Non-Disclosure Of Criminal Cases Would Be Unjust: Allahabad HC

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Statute/Rules Allowing Employer To Deny Appointment Only Due To Non-Disclosure Of Criminal Cases Would Be Unjust: Allahabad HC

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers