Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 653 (RAJ)

Ranjeet Singh S/o Dhura Ram v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigan Ltd.

2024-04-23

SAMEER JAIN

body2024
ORDER : Sameer Jain, J. 1. The instant petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers, as reproduced herein-under:- “1. Hence prayed that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Technical Helper forthwith with all consequential benefits without any delay. 2. Any other order of relief as deemed just and proper by the Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an advertisement was floated for the post of ‘Technical Helper’ in JVVNL/AVVNL/JDVVNL. In total, 2930 posts were advertised. Learned counsel argued that qua disqualification of candidates, the relevant clause so incorporated within the advertisement was Clause No. 6, wherein pendency of a criminal case was not incorporated as a ground for declaring/treating a candidate as unfit. 3. In this background, learned counsel submitted that having the requisite educational qualifications, the petitioner applied for the post of ‘Technical Helper’ and was thereafter, selected on merits as well. However, the cause and controversy in the matter arose when merely on account of pendency of a criminal case, the petitioner was ousted from the selection process, despite having been declared meritorious. Being aggrieved, the petitioner even served notice(s) for demand of justice upon the respondents, but unfortunately, no heed was paid to them. 4. Therefore, being further aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thereafter, this Court while considering the case of the petitioner on a prima facie basis, vide order dated 31.07.2012, granted interim protection in favour of the petitioner, directing the respondents to keep one seat vacant qua the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this factual background, submitted that the post of ‘Technical Helper’ is an unskilled post as per the Rajasthan State Electricity Board(Technical Workman Service) Regulations, 1975. It was argued that despite being selected on merits and having obtained higher marks amongst the candidates selected in the petitioner’ category, the petitioner was not selected. The only reason, which is also not refuted by the counsel for the respondent regarding the petitioner’s non-consideration of appointment, pertained to the pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner. It was argued that despite being selected on merits and having obtained higher marks amongst the candidates selected in the petitioner’ category, the petitioner was not selected. The only reason, which is also not refuted by the counsel for the respondent regarding the petitioner’s non-consideration of appointment, pertained to the pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner. It was submitted that the said clause/criteria did not form part of the advertisement so issued and was only voiced by the respondents at a belated stage i.e. at the time of document verification. Nowhere in the advertisement and/or form, was any requirement included, asking the candidates to disclose the pendency of a criminal case against them. It was only at the stage of document verification that the said condition was imposed upon the candidates. Regardless, the petitioner duly disclosed the information as sought in the prescribed format. 6. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even otherwise, the Regulations of 1975, by way of Regulation Nos. 4(f) and 4(k) defines ‘character’ and ‘disqualification’ for appointment. Howsoever, the said Rules, in no overt or covert form, have prescribed the pendency of a criminal case as a ground for disqualification from the selection process, especially when the candidate is meritorious. 7. In support of the contentions leveled, learned counsel placed reliance upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Mohammed Imran vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 17 SCC 696, Ravindra Kumar vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 INSC 131 and Avtar Singh vs. Union of India reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 . While placing reliance upon the said judgments, it was submitted that the yardstick for rejection or acceptance of an applicant’s candidature, on account of the pendency of a criminal case, ought to depend on many factors, such as the nature of the post, type of service, sensitivity and nature of service, nature of duties, kind of criminal offense and acquittal-whether honourable or otherwise. 8. Lastly, in light of the foregoing facts, it was conclusively argued that the nature of the post for which the petitioner applied was ‘unskilled’, not being sensitive in nature. Moreover, after due trial, the petitioner was even acquitted/exonerated by the learned Trial Court in the Year 2019. 8. Lastly, in light of the foregoing facts, it was conclusively argued that the nature of the post for which the petitioner applied was ‘unskilled’, not being sensitive in nature. Moreover, after due trial, the petitioner was even acquitted/exonerated by the learned Trial Court in the Year 2019. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature, despite being meritorious, and especially on account of a condition incorporated at a belated stage, is erroneous and bad in law. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondent is a Public Utility Service. Employment on every post so advertised, as per the service jurisprudence, is a choice to be exercised by the employer, keeping in mind reasonable conditions, which may even be implicit and not defined explicitly. Furthermore, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner were serious in nature, as the same were under Sections 457 and 379 of the IPC, wherein a punishment can be imposed after conviction, for imprisonment up to 5 years. Lastly, learned counsel argued that the offense as alleged, showcased moral turpitude qua the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was rightfully ousted from the selection process. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, alternatively, learned counsel submitted that if this Court is of the view that employment should be awarded to the petitioner, then in such an eventuality, the matter may be referred to the Selection Board for independent consideration. 10. In support of the arguments advanced, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Union of India vs. Methu Meda: Civil Appeal No. 6238/2021, State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Abhijeet Singh Pawar: Civil Appeal No. 11356/2018 and UT Chandigarh Administration and Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar and Anr.: Civil Appeal No. 67/2018. Having made the submissions recorded herein-above, learned counsel duly conceded to the fact that application form/advertisement did not specifically require the candidates to disclose the pendency of a criminal case. The said requirement was only introduced at the stage of document verification by way of an affidavit, which was duly fulfilled by the petitioner within the requisite time. 11. Having made the submissions recorded herein-above, learned counsel duly conceded to the fact that application form/advertisement did not specifically require the candidates to disclose the pendency of a criminal case. The said requirement was only introduced at the stage of document verification by way of an affidavit, which was duly fulfilled by the petitioner within the requisite time. 11. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides, scanned the record of the petition and perused through the judgments cited at Bar. 12. Upon a perusal of the record, the following factual stipulations, necessary for the adjudication of the lis before this Court have emerged, namely:- 12.1 That the petitioner applied for the post of ‘Technical Helper’, which is an unskilled post, as per the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (Technical Workman) Service Regulations, 1975. 12.2 That after having participated in the selection process/examination, the petitioner was declared meritorious, having secured marks above the cut-off, as prescribed by the respondents. 12.3 That the advertisement dated 17.08.2011 and the corresponding application form did not formulate and/or impose any requirement upon the candidates for disclosing the pendency of a criminal case against them and resultantly, the petitioner did not do so, as the same was not warranted. 12.4 That the said fact qua the application form/advertisement not requiring the candidates to disclose the pendency of a criminal case is not refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents. 12.5 That the petitioner duly disclosed the fact of pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner, by way of an appropriate affidavit, in support of Condition No.13, at the stage of document verification, when the said requirement was imposed upon the candidates. 12.6 That despite being meritorious, the petitioner’s name was not reflected in the final select list, on account of the pendency of a criminal against the petitioner. 12.7 That being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a notice for demand of justice before the respondents but the same remained unanswered. 12.8 That vide order dated 31.07.2012, upon a prima facie analysis of the facts of the present case, this Court granted interim indulgence in favour of the petitioner and as a result, directed the respondents to keep one seat vacant qua the petitioner. 13. 12.8 That vide order dated 31.07.2012, upon a prima facie analysis of the facts of the present case, this Court granted interim indulgence in favour of the petitioner and as a result, directed the respondents to keep one seat vacant qua the petitioner. 13. Having taken note of the foregoing stipulations, this Court deems it appropriate to observe as under:- 13.1 The post of Technical Helper, on which appointment is sought, is ‘unskilled’ in nature. 13.2 Moreover, the duties expected to be carried out on the said post are not ‘sensitive’ either. 13.3 Moreover, in the Year 2019, the petitioner was exonerated in the criminal proceedings pending against him under section 379 of IPC, albeit on the benefit of doubt. 13.4 That no criminal antecedents are reflected against the petitioner, capable of rendering the Court to assume his delinquency. 13.5 That admittedly, the advertisement dated 17.08.2011 did not incorporate any clause within its body regarding the disqualification of candidates on account of the pendency of a criminal case. However, when required at the stage of document verification, the petitioner duly disclosed the fact of pendency of a criminal case by way of an affidavit. Therefore, there was no concealment/suppression on part of the petitioner. 14. At this juncture, this Court also deems it appropriate to take note of the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Avtar Singh (Supra), which is reproduced herein-under:- “36. What Yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by concerned authorities considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects. 38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus: 38.6 In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.” 15. Therefore, upon a cumulative consideration of the foregoing observations, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the instant petition. 16. Therefore, upon a cumulative consideration of the foregoing observations, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the instant petition. 16. As a result, the one seat, which was kept vacant qua the petitioner vide interim order dated 31.07.2012 be considered by the Selection/Screening Board, in favour of the petitioner. The consequential dues, as prayed for, shall not be awarded to the petitioner, owing to the fact that till date, no work has been rendered by the petitioner. 17. In the above terms, the present petition is allowed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.