'Arbitrary': Rajasthan HC Orders Appointment Of Widow Who Was Denied Post Due To Pending Criminal Case Arising Out Of Matrimonial Issue

The Rajasthan High Court grants relief to a widow candidate who had successfully cleared the interview of the Rajasthan Administrative Services (RAS), but was denied appointment on the ground of pending criminal cases arising out of matrimonial discord.Justice Arun Monga held that despite pending criminal proceedings being a condition for ineligibility prescribed in a circular, the administrative discretion had to operate in harmony with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v Union of India. "As stated above, the FIR had emanated from the matrimonial discord between the petitioner and her husband (since deceased). The offences in the FIR do not involve moral turpitude. The role attributed to the petitioner is not of such a nature so as to impinge on the nature of duties to be performed by her upon appointment...Even otherwise, one ought to be mindful that the youth need a reformative approach to the indiscretions committed in heat of the moment, which may or may not be intentional. Societal and so should the legal perspective be, of course depending upon the nature of delinquency, that youthful indiscretions should not permanently tarnish an individual's future. A compassionate and reformative approach ought to be adopted when dealing with young individuals who may have committed minor transgressions. Young people are still in the process of emotional and intellectual development. A punitive approach that permanently brands young individuals as criminals for relatively minor mistakes contradicts the principles of justice/fairness, recidivism and reformation and reintegration into society," the court said."In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the denial of appointment to the petitioner solely on the ground of a pending criminal case, which does not involve moral turpitude, is arbitrary and unsustainable," the court added.It was held that the Apex Court had opined that rather than mechanically denying appointment due to mere pending of a case, the appointing authority had to objectively assess the suitability of the candidate based on the nature of offence, its relevance to the post, and whether it involved moral turpitude. The State relied upon condition number 15 of the advertisement for the post, as well as the circular issued in 2019 which prescribed that in case of any pending cases against the candidates under Chapters XVI and XVII of IPC, s/he would be ineligible for appointment. After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to the Avtar Singh case, and held that, “it was held, inter alia, that though it is open to the employer to adjudge antecedents of the candidate, but ultimate action should be based on objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects and that in case when facts have been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, the employer in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to the decision of such case”.In this background, it was held that the 2019 circular was in the nature of an administrative guideline, and the blanket disqualification therein had to be read in harmony with the principles laid down in Avtar Singh case. It was opined that the employer's discretion could not override the flexibility provided in the Avtar Singh case in matters of trivial offences or those not involving moral turpitude. The Court highlighted that in the present case, the petitioner did not suppress any fact regarding the pending criminal proceedings against her. Furthermore, the offences involved were arising from a matrimonial dispute, and did not prima facie reflected a character flaw that might render her unfit for the post of an RAS. “The judgment in Avtar Singh's case explicitly cautions against arbitrary denials of appointment, and requires a proportionate response after considering the factual matrix, including the absence of any suppression by the petitioner and if offences are not multiple or heinous. This approach is also reflected in and the intent of the Circular ibid. As already observed, the appointing authority should weigh merits and demerits specific to each case, rather than applying a blanket bar.”The Court observed that the State was obligated to objectively consider the facts of the case, including the nature of the offence, duties and status of the post, and then decide petitioner's suitability. In contrary, there was nothing on record to show that the review committee applied its mind objectively to the case. It was held that the discretion vested in the appointing authority was not exercised in a just, fair and reasonable manner, but arbitrarily. The Court stated that principle of proportionality had to be kept in mind by the authority, and minor indiscretions could not be equated with serious crimes. Accordingly, denial of appointment to the petitioner merely on the ground of pending criminal ...

'Arbitrary': Rajasthan HC Orders Appointment Of Widow Who Was Denied Post Due To Pending Criminal Case Arising Out Of Matrimonial Issue

Nupur Agrawal

Tags