The Rajasthan High Court recently delivered a landmark ruling, granting relief to a man whose appointment as a Lower Division Clerk was denied due to the pendency of a criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court held that the mere existence of a pending criminal case cannot disqualify a candidate from government service, emphasizing the principles of natural justice, fairness, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Case Background
The petitioner applied for the position of Lower Division Clerk in 2013, successfully clearing the recruitment process. However, his appointment was delayed due to administrative delays, during which a 498A case was filed against him by his wife. The state government subsequently denied his appointment, citing a circular that bars candidates with pending criminal cases from government service. This rejection was challenged by the petitioner in the Rajasthan High Court.
Court’s Observations
Justice Arun Monga noted that at the time of the job advertisement, there were no criminal charges against the petitioner. The delay in the recruitment process, caused by the respondents, unfairly deprived the petitioner of his rightful opportunity. The court stated:
“Pending criminal trial, unless proven guilty by way of conviction, cannot bar appointments. The rejection infringes upon the petitioner’s rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, denying equal treatment and personal liberty without a fair trial.”
The judgment also highlighted the Supreme Court’s guidelines in the Avtar Singh case, which stress that pending criminal cases should not automatically disqualify candidates from government service unless the charges are proven.
Key Details of the Judgment
- Violation of Fundamental Rights: The court observed that the rejection of the petitioner’s appointment violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and protection of life and personal liberty.
- Failure to Consider Precedents: The respondents failed to adhere to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in the Avtar Singh case, demonstrating flawed decision-making.
- Interim Relief: An interim order directed the government to keep one post vacant for the petitioner. The court ordered the respondents to issue the appointment letter within 30 days, subject to the final outcome of the criminal trial. The petitioner was required to provide an undertaking that he would not claim equity if convicted.
Broader Implications
This case echoes another significant instance where a husband’s government job was denied due to a pending 498A case filed by his wife. Despite being on the merit list, the government rejected his application based on a 2019 circular regarding character verification. The Rajasthan High Court intervened, criticizing the decision as arbitrary and unreasonable. Justice Arun Monga remarked:
“Mere breakdown of a marriage cannot be treated as if the husband is the sole erring party just because his wife has chosen to press criminal charges, which are yet to be proved.”
The court further emphasized that pending criminal proceedings do not amount to a declaration of guilt and should not serve as grounds for disqualification unless explicitly stated in the appointment rules.
Conclusion
The Rajasthan High Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that pending criminal charges cannot be equated with guilt. This decision ensures that individuals are not unjustly denied opportunities due to unproven allegations, safeguarding their fundamental rights. It also serves as a reminder of the misuse of Section 498A and underscores the need for balanced judicial and administrative approaches in such cases.
Cause Title: Suresh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Others
Neutral Citation: [2025:RJ-JD:2224]
Appearance: For the Petitioner: Advocate Vivek Firoda
