Rajasthan High Court comes to rescue of woman denied civil service job due to FIR filed by husband

The Rajasthan High Court recently ordered the State to confirm a woman’s appointment in the Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS), which had been declined earlier due to the pendency of a criminal case registered against her by her husband [Neeraj Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan]..Justice Arun Monga found that the First Information Report (FIR) against the petitioner-candidate pertained to a matrimonial dispute and that she had disclosed it in her information form.The Court observed that all along, the authorities did not raise any objection whatsoever to her eligibility and suitability for the appointment. It rejected the State’s argument that the job advertisement had made it clear that if a candidate was facing trial for any criminal case, she would be ineligible for appointment.“The respondents have not shown any prescription under the relevant statutory recruitment rules for automatic ineligibility of a candidate if any criminal case against her was under trial in the court,” it reasoned..Further, the Court noted that the settled law is that when facts have been truthfully declared in the character verification form regarding the pendency of any criminal case of a trivial nature, the employer has the discretion to appoint the candidate and make an objective decision on due consideration of all relevant aspects.The Court eventually ruled that such stipulation (that a pending criminal case would disqualify a candidate) could not have been included in the recruitment advertisement. “I am of the opinion that the part of condition no. 15 of the advertisement dated 20.07.2021 i.e. that if in any pending criminal case, the candidate was under trial in Court, he/she would be ineligible for appointment, is untenable in law. It was wrongly inserted in the advertisement by the respondents and ought to be ignored. It thus follows that the respondents’ reliance thereon cannot be accepted,” the single judge ruled..The petitioner before the Court, Neeraj Kanwar, had successfully appeared in the examination held for Rajasthan State Administrative and Subordinate Services in 2023. The advertisement for the post was issued in 2021. In 2024, while appointment letters were issued to other selected candidates, she was denied the same due to the pendency of the FIR. She moved the High Court for relief. In 2024, she was able to secure an interim order for a provisional appointment to the RAS. Pertinently, the husband who had lodged the 2020 FIR against Kanwar and her family members had died even before she had applied for the post. .In the judgment dated March 27, Justice Monga considered whether the allegations levelled by the deceased husband against his wife could be substantiated to the point of resulting in adverse civil consequences for her, while the criminal trial remains pending. "The answer is in the negative," he held. The High Court referred to Supreme Court rulings, which held that an appointing authority must assess the suitability of a candidate based on the nature of the alleged offence, its relevance to the post, and whether it involves moral turpitude, rather than mechanically denying appointment due to the mere pendency of a case..Looking into the allegations in the FIR, the Court said the cited offences did not involve moral turpitude and that the role attributed to her was not the kind that would render her unfit for appointment. The Court concluded that the State was wrong to simply declare Kanwar ineligible for the post only because of the pending FIR. “It is neither pleaded nor shown on record that the competent authority had, on objective criteria duly considered the relevant facts and circumstances of case, including the nature of duties and status of the post in question, as also the circumstances of the offence and then decided on merits that the petitioner was unsuitable for appointment,” it added..Accordingly, the Court held that the denial of appointment to the petitioner was arbitrary and unsustainable. It ordered the State to confirm her appointment, subject to the outcome of the criminal trial against her. “The respondents are directed to make the appointment of the petitioner pursuant to interim order dated 23.07.2024 as absolute in accordance with her merit and category, subject, of course, to the outcome of the pending criminal case, and also furnishing an undertaking on an affidavit by the petitioner that she shall not claim any special equity by virtue of her having joined on the post in question in case of her conviction in the pending criminal trial,” the Court ordered..Senior Advocate Anand Purohit with advocate Mayank Roy, Sameer Pareek and Vishal Singhal represented the petitioner.Senior Advocate Rajesh Panwar (Additional Advocate General) with advocate Meenal Singhvi represented the State..[Read Judgment]