Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 257 (RAJ)

Amarjot v. Union of India

2025-02-10

ARUN MONGA

body2025
Order : 1. The petitioner herein seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order and/or direction commanding the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner on the post of Medical Officers, (Assistant Commandant) which was withheld due to pending criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial dispute between him and his estranged wife, instituted at her instance, which were subsequently dropped due to compromise between two of them. 2. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication are that the respondents have issued an advertisement for the posts of Super Specialist Medical Officer (Second-in-command), Specialist Medical Officer (Deputy Commandant), Medical Officer (Assistant Commandant), and Dental Surgeon (Assistant Commandant) in the Central Armed Police Forces (BSF, CRPF, ITBP, SSB, Assam Rifles), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. 2.1. The minimum qualification for the Medical Officer post requires a recognized medical qualification in Allopathic Medicine as per the Indian Medical Councils Act, 1956, along with permanent registration from any State Medical Council. 2.2. The petitioner, being eligible, applied online under the Economic Weaker Sections category and specified preferences for various Para-Military Forces. 2.3. During the interview, the petitioner was asked to submit an attestation form disclosing any pending criminal cases. The petitioner disclosed that an FIR No.0084, dated 07.08.2020 was registered against him by his wife under Sections 498A, 406, and354 IPC at Mahila Thana, Udaipur. 2.4. On 26.07.2022, the petitioner received an email stating that a decision regarding his candidature would be made only after the outcome of the pending criminal case. Hence, this petition. 3. The stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner was only selected provisionally and due to pendency of criminal case, his candidate has been kept in abeyance. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the petitioner and his wife has been amicably settled and thus, he is entitled to get appointment on the post of Medical Officers (Assistant Commandant). In support thereof, counsel relies on a co-ordinate Bench judgment rendered in Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [2016 (3) WLC 345] , wherein, it was held that on account of pendency of criminal case the petitioner cannot be denied appointment. In support thereof, counsel relies on a co-ordinate Bench judgment rendered in Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [2016 (3) WLC 345] , wherein, it was held that on account of pendency of criminal case the petitioner cannot be denied appointment. In the case of Mukesh Kumar (supra), the co-ordinate bench of this Court after considering various aspects of the matter laid down as under:- “15. Viewed in light of the above factual scenario, it is evident that the Rules not post any hurdle against the petitioner’s right to be appointed in the police services. At best, a rider can be imposed in the petitioner’s appointment order that in the event of conviction in the above criminal case, he may be liable to be terminated from service without holding any enquiry and an undertaking in this regard can be procured from him in this regard. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner on the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the questioned selection process ignoring the pendency of the above criminal case against the petitioner. However, the appointment order shall bear a condition that the petitioner’s services may be terminated in the event of his conviction and he shall also submit an undertaking to this effect before joining to the post. Since the petitioner was gainfully employed as a Teacher during the intervening period, he is not entitled to any consequential benefits. However, the respondents shall grant him all notional services benefits from the date of the order Annex.6 dated 22.12.2009.” 6. The above judgment was subsequently followed in Amrit Pal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13198/2024 , decided on 27.11.2024, wherein the alleged offences also arose from matrimonial dispute, relevant of which is reproduced hereinvelow:- “9. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the judgment ibid and see no reason why the benefits thereof be not given to the petitioner. 10. I am unable to convince myself with the insipidity of the argument adopted by the learned counsel for respondents that since the charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, petitioner does not deserve to be appointed. Despite allegations under IPC Sections 498A, 406, 323, and 494, the petitioner is presumed innocent until proven guilty. 10. I am unable to convince myself with the insipidity of the argument adopted by the learned counsel for respondents that since the charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, petitioner does not deserve to be appointed. Despite allegations under IPC Sections 498A, 406, 323, and 494, the petitioner is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The circular dated 04.12.2019 and the impugned order unjustly bar his appointment based solely on pending criminal charges. The action of respondents infringes upon the petitioner’s rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, denying equal treatment and personal liberty without a fair trial. Moreover, failure to apply the Supreme Court's guidelines in Avtar Singh (Supra) regarding pending criminal cases indicates nothing else but a flawed decision-making on the part of the respondents.” 7. The case of the petitioner herein is in fact on a better footing as no undertaking and/or affidavit is required from him since the matter stands settled amicably between the parties and in any case being a matrimonial dispute the same does not in any manner impinge on the nature of duties to be performed by the petitioner. 8. Since in the reply a candidate stand has been taken that merit and eligibility of the petitioner shall be determined only after decision of the instant writ petition, the respondents are directed to do the needful within a period of 30 days from the date petitioner approaches the competent authority of the respondents with a web print of the instant order and in case the petitioner is found otherwise meritorious and eligible, benefit of his performance be given to him on parity with his counterparts, with whom, he had competed pursuant to the same advertisement. Petitioner in case is meted out with the favourable treatment, he shall be entitled to notional benefits and seniority with effect from the same date as his other counterparts were appointed, but for the period he remained out of service, no financial benefits shall be accorded on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.