Statute, Rules Or Instructions Empowering Employer To Deny Appointment To A Candidate Due To Non-Disclosure Of Criminal Cases Is Unjust: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court held that any statute, rules, or instructions empowering the employer to deny appointment to a candidate only because of non-disclosure of criminal cases is unjust and unreasonable.
The Court held thus in a Writ Petition in which the issue was whether the appointing authority can deny appointment to a selected candidate only on the ground of non-disclosure of a criminal case registered against him even though the candidate was not named as an accused in the charge sheet and was not put on trial in the said case.
A Single Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai observed, “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. Consequently, any statute/rules/instructions which empowers the employer to deny appointment to a candidate only because of non-disclosure of criminal cases would also be unjust and unreasonable and 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.”
The Bench said that, verification of character and antecedents of a candidate is required to adjudge his suitability for appointment and a candidate who has suppressed material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and the decision of the competent authority must be reasonable and objective having due regards to the facts of the case.
Advocate Siddharth Khare appeared for the Petitioner while Standing Counsel appeared for the Respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The Petitioner was selected for appointment as Constable in the selections held in pursuance to an advertisement issued in 2015 by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow. 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 candidates were warned that in case any information given in the Affidavit was found to be wrong, they would be liable to be dismissed or removed from service. The Petitioner submitted his Affidavit in 2018 putting a cross against the column which required disclosure of criminal cases, representing that no criminal case was either registered or pending against him.
As per the Petitioner, he came to know that a criminal case under Sections 147, 323, 452, and 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered against him but he was not named in the chargesheet. He stated that he came to know about the said criminal case after he had filed his Affidavit and hence, he filed another Affidavit before the authorities, disclosing the details of the criminal case. The District Magistrate recommended that the Petitioner was fit to be appointed as Constable after noting that he was wrongly named in FIR. However, the Superintendent of Police rejected the Petitioner’s claim and declared him unfit for the appointment to the said post. This was challenged by the Petitioner before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “In cases where there is non-disclosure of criminal case by the candidate, the nature of the case and the seriousness of the offence with which the applicant is charged, the end result of the trial and if the applicant was acquitted the reasons for acquittal-whether the acquittal was a clean acquittal or the applicant has been acquitted on a technical ground and given benefit of doubt - as well as the socio-economic status of the candidate are some of the factors which are also to be considered while adjudging the suitability of a candidate for appointment.”
The Court further noted that normally in cases where an authority has wrongly exercised its discretion while passing an Order, the matter, after quashing the Order is remitted back to the authority concerned to pass fresh orders.
“However, in the present case, the petitioner has been disqualified and has been refused appointment letter only on the ground of non-disclosure of a criminal case registered against him. In view of the reasons given above, mere non-disclosure of the criminal case could not be fatal for the appointment of the petitioner. Further, the matter is pending in this Court since 2019 and the petitioner was selected in the selections held in pursuance to the notification issued in 2015”, it remarked.
The Court also said that the Petitioner hails from a small town and there is nothing on record to show that the antecedents or character of the Petitioner makes him unsuitable for appointment on the post.
“It is also not the case of the respondents that apart from the indiscretion of the petitioner regarding non-disclosure of the criminal case, the antecedents and character of the petitioner were such that he would otherwise be unsuitable for appointment on the post of constable”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the impugned Order, and directed the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner.
Cause Title- Ashish Kumar Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:172418)
