One Public Employer Is Not Bound By Decision Of Other Public Employer On Suitability Of A Candidate For Appointment: Allahabad HC

The case involved a petitioner who had been booked under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, following allegations made by his sister-in-law. The charges included Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. In December 2020, the petitioner was granted provisional appointment as an Assistant Legislative Committee – Protocol/Executive Officer in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, contingent upon the outcome of the criminal case.

Subsequently, the petitioner was selected as the Chief Executive Officer for the Roorkee Cantonment Board in Uttarakhand under the Ministry of Defence after securing the first position in the Combined State & Upper Subordinate Services Examination in 2019. When his criminal history was disclosed, a report was sought from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, which confirmed there were no disciplinary inquiries pending against the petitioner.

Despite this, the Additional Chief Secretary, Appointment Section – III, Government of Uttar Pradesh, rejected the petitioner’s request for appointment based on the pending criminal case. The petitioner challenged this rejection in the High Court, arguing that the State Government could not deny his appointment merely because of his involvement in the dowry case. He further contended that the criminal charges against him were false, a factor that had not been adequately considered by the authorities.

A Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai said, “Two different public employers may have different views regarding the suitability of a candidate for appointment and one employer is not bound by the decision and discretion of the other employer. The State Government cannot be saddled with the liability to mechanically and slavishly follow the decision taken by the Central Government or the Rajya Sabha Secretariat.”

Advocate Mayank appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Kalyan Sundram Srivastava appeared for the Respondents.

The Court observed that the petitioner had disclosed the pendency of the criminal case truthfully in his application. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, where it was held that even an acquittal does not automatically make a person suitable for appointment if the nature of the allegations is serious. The pendency of a criminal case, the Court noted, is a valid reason for rejecting an individual's candidacy, as a conviction could make the person unfit for public service.

The Court also referenced another Supreme Court ruling, State of West Bengal vs. S.K. Nazrul Islam, emphasizing the duty of an employer to verify the antecedents of candidates. The Court further stated that the suitability of a candidate cannot be judged solely by an acquittal, as the nature of the charges could still impact the individual’s eligibility for government service.

The Court highlighted, “At this stage, it would also be relevant to note that there may be certain actions and matters which are not susceptible to judicial process because of want of any judicially manageable standards to judge them. The correctness of such actions are also not to be judged by the Constitutional Courts in exercise of power of judicial review,”

Given that the case against the petitioner involved allegations of moral turpitude, the Court held that the State Government was justified in assessing his suitability for appointment independently and rejecting his candidature.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the decision of the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, was upheld, with the Court noting that judicial review cannot extend to matters of executive discretion unless they are tainted by malice or arbitrariness.

Cause Title: Vishal Saraswat v. State of U.P. & Anr, [2024:AHC:182376]

Appearance:

Respondents: Advocates Kalyan Sundram Srivastava, Manoj Kumar Singh