Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 367 (MP)

Ram Mohan Sharma v. National Fertilizer Ltd.

2005-03-10

RAJENDRA MENON

body2005
JUDGMENT Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by action of the respondents in not issuing appointment order to the petitioner and not permitting him to join duty, even though it is the case of the petitioner that he was found eligible in the selection process for appointment. On an advertisement being issued by the respondents for appointment to the post of Technician Apprentice (Laboratory), petitioner participated in the selection process conducted by the respondents in the year 1998 and after due selection, was empanelled for appointment. However, after filling of requisite attestation forms and verification forms and completing all the formalities, petitioner was not appointed. On enquiry it was indicated to the petitioner that in view of his involvement in a criminal case under section 376 of IPC, which is pending against him, he cannot be appointed. Challenging this action, petitioner has filed this petition and it is the case of the petitioner that in the verification and attestation forms submitted by him, petitioner has disclosed all the facts about the pendency of the criminal case. He has not suppressed or withheld any information about the criminal case, petitioner has been discharged in the cases and by bringing on record orders of the Criminal Court discharging the petitioner as contained in Annexures P-3 and P-4, Shri Jitendra Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that when there is no suppression of fact and when the criminal C1se because of which petitioner was not granted appointment has come to an end in discharging the petitioner, petitioner cannot be denied appointment. Referring to various judgments, Shri Jitendra Maheshwari has tried to emphasise that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground for denying appointment to the petitioner. Referring to various judgments, Shri Jitendra Maheshwari has tried to emphasise that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground for denying appointment to the petitioner. Per contra Shri Ankur Modi, learned counsel for the respondents, argued that when attestation forms and others forms submitted by the petitioner were considered and on verification from the Police Station, Guna, it was indicated that a case under section 376 read with section 420 of IPC has been registered against the petitioner, he has been in judicial custody for a period of 94 days and the character verification received from the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Guna, vide Annexures R-2 and R-3 indicated that petitioner was involved in certain serious offences, therefore in view of rule 1.24.1 of the Service Manual as applicable to the respondents' establishment, respondents have denied appointment to the petitioner. It is the case of the respondents that apart from suppressing the fact of judicial custody for 94 days, respondents have no confidence in the petitioner and in view of his background and past antecedent it would not be in the interest of establishment to give appointment to such person. It is, therefore, argued that no mandamus can be issued when employer is unwilling to enter into a contract with such a person. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the· records. There is no difficulty in accepting the proposition put forth by Shri Jitendra Maheshwari with regard to taking action against an employee concerned merely because of pendency of criminal case, which ultimately resulted in his acquittal or discharge. However, this is not a case where· an employee has been appointed and action is taken for terminating his services after his appointment. This is a case where after empanelment of the employee, namely, the petitioner, on verification the employer has come to know that he has been involved in certain cases, has been charged for having committing offences under sections 376, 420 of IPC. Considering the aforesaid fact, respondents feel that they have no confidence in such employee and therefore it is not desirable to appoint him. Clause 1.24.1 of the Service Manual contemplates that no order of appointment need to be issued to a candidate unless satisfactory report of character and antecedents is received from the concerned authorities. Considering the aforesaid fact, respondents feel that they have no confidence in such employee and therefore it is not desirable to appoint him. Clause 1.24.1 of the Service Manual contemplates that no order of appointment need to be issued to a candidate unless satisfactory report of character and antecedents is received from the concerned authorities. It is clear from the facts and circumstances of the present case that in the character verification report submitted by the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Guna, and CID, Bhopal, it was indicated that petitioner was involved in certain serious incidents for offences under sections 376 and 420 of IPC. Considering this background of the petitioner, respondent employer has come to a conclusion that respondent's establishment should not employ such a person who is involved in a sex scandal which was serious in nature. Even though petitioner may have been discharged in the criminal case, but a discretion is vested with the employer to refuse appointment to a person in whom they have no confidence. This Court cannot compel the employer to appointment a person against whom adverse verification report is received. By issuing a mandamus this Court would be compelling the respondents to enter into a contract of personal service with the petitioner when they are unwilling to enter into such a contract due to adverse verification report received against the petitioner regarding his character. This is not a case where merely because of suppression of certain material facts service of an employee is terminated. This is a case where having received certain adverse report, the employer is unwilling to issue orders of appointment to a person who is all edged to be involved in a serious offences. It is well settled in law that merely selection of a candidate does not give him any legal right to seek appointment, on reasonable and justifiable ground the employer can refuse to give appointment to such person in view of the adverse verification report received. That being so, merely because that petitioner has been discharged in criminal case, it would not be appropriate for this Court to compel the respondents to issue appointment orders when they are unwilling to enter into a contract with the petitioner because of his adverse character report received from various authorities. That being so, merely because that petitioner has been discharged in criminal case, it would not be appropriate for this Court to compel the respondents to issue appointment orders when they are unwilling to enter into a contract with the petitioner because of his adverse character report received from various authorities. Keeping in view the discretion exercised by the respondents, the provisions of clause 1.24.1 of the Service Manual and the fact that there is no arbitrariness, unreasonableness or illegality in the discretion exercised by the respondents, no case for interference in the matter is made out. In the result, petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.