Mere Filing Of Chargesheet Is Not Sufficient To Reject Candidature: Rajasthan HC Grants Relief To RPSC Candidate
|The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the candidature of a person cannot be rejected merely on the ground that a criminal case and chargesheet has been filed against him, and the authorities must examine every individual case from the angle that whether the act/offence committed by such person involves moral turpitude or not.
The Bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur held, “Thus, in the opinion of this Court, each individual case is required to be examined from the angle that whether the act/offence committed by such person involves moral turpitude or not and whether a person who has committed such act can be granted a certificate of ‘Good character’ or not. Without examining each case on the facts and circumstances of that criminal case, the candidature cannot be rejected merely on the ground that an FIR/Charge-sheet has been filed under one of the offences enumerated in Clause-1 of the circular/notification dated 04.12.2019.”
Advocate Vivek Firoda appeared for the Petitioner, and AAG Manish Patel appeared for the Respondents.
A writ petition was filed seeking directions to the State to issue an order of appointment in favour of the petitioner on the post as per his merit position in view of the recommendations made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (‘the RPSC’) in pursuance of the competitive examination held.
It was the case of the Petitioner that while working at the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-1 at a government school, he applied for the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Service Examination. He cleared the exam and was selected by the RPSC.
Before the declaration of the result by the RPSC, an FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 498(A), 323 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR pertained to a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed. In these circumstances, when the petitioner did not receive the appointment letter from the State of Rajasthan, he approached the respondents and was informed that because of his involvement in the criminal case, his appointment was cancelled.
The Court said, “The provisions of the circular/notification dated 04.12.2019 cannot be applied mechanically by the respondents and merely on the fact that petitioner is involved in any criminal case, the respondents cannot deny the appointment to the him. A close reading of the circular/notification dated 04.12.2019 shows that each individual case, in which charge-sheet has been filed, is required to be examined by the competent authorities for the purpose of reaching to the conclusion as to whether the character of a candidate is above board or not and whether a person can be denied appointment on the ground of his bad character or whether a person is holding the certificate of good character or not?”
It observed that the respondents were under an obligation to examine each case, considering the facts and circumstances of the criminal case, as well as involvement/allegation against the candidate to conclude whether a candidate/person can be said to be of good character or not in light of the guidelines set forth in the circular/notification.
The Court held, “The circumstances of the conviction should be taken into account and if the same involve no moral turpitude or association with crimes of violence or with a movement which has its object to overthrow by violent means of a Government as established by law, the mere conviction need not be regarded as a disqualification. Likewise, other incidents in which a candidate is said to be involved may necessarily do not give an indication that the said person could not hold good character. Before reaching to the conclusion as to whether a person is unfit to be appointed in the Government job or not, each case is required to be scrutinized by the competent authorities considering the facts involved in that particular criminal case.”
Accordingly, the Court concluded that in the present case, the Respondents failed to examine the case of the petitioner in light of the circular and directly reached the conclusion that since the petitioner was involved in the criminal case, he was not entitled to a Government job in pursuance of the selection, was dehors the law.
Hence, the Court allowed the petition and directed the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner.
Cause Title: Dana Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:39644)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocates Vivek Firoda, Jayram Saran and Bharat Singh Rathore
Respondents: AAG Manish Patel and Advocate Mehali Mehta