The Allahabad High Court has ruled that mere involvement in a matrimonial dispute, particularly as a peripheral party, cannot be a sufficient ground to deny public employment. The court criticized the authorities for adopting a “mechanical approach” in denying appointment to a successful candidate.
Background of the Case:
The case, titled Baba Singh v. State of U.P. & Others (WRIT – A No. 12055 of 2024), was filed by the petitioner, Baba Singh, who challenged the denial of his appointment as an Assistant Boring Technician in the Minor Irrigation Department, Uttar Pradesh.
In 2019, the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (UPSSSC) issued Advertisement No. 06-Exam/2019 for the recruitment of Assistant Boring Technicians. The selection process involved a competitive examination, which Singh successfully cleared in July 2022, ranking at Serial No. 108 in the select list. However, during the document verification phase, he was denied appointment due to the pendency of a criminal case against him.
The criminal case, Complaint Case No. 4792 of 2021, was filed by Singh’s brother’s wife, alleging mental and physical harassment by her husband’s family, including Singh, under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 323 IPC, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Singh contended that he was unaware of this complaint until the summons was issued.
Despite Singh’s successful selection and completion of the verification process, the Chief Engineer of the Minor Irrigation Department rejected his candidature, citing the pending case. Singh had earlier approached the Allahabad High Court (Writ – A No. 21694 of 2023), resulting in an order directing the department to reconsider his representation. However, the department upheld its decision to deny his appointment, prompting Singh to file the present writ petition.
Legal Issues Involved:
The court examined two primary legal questions:
1. Suitability for Public Employment: Should a candidate be denied public employment based on involvement in a matrimonial dispute between the candidate’s family members?
2. Antecedent Verification under the Government Order of 1958: Did the appointing authority and District Magistrate fulfill their duties under the Government Order dated April 28, 1958, which guides the verification of antecedents for candidates in public service?
Court’s Observations:
The case was heard by Justice J.J. Munir of the Allahabad High Court, who made critical observations on the procedure adopted by the authorities. The court noted that the petitioner was denied appointment solely due to the pendency of a complaint case, which arose from a matrimonial dispute involving his brother and sister-in-law.
The court emphasized that denying employment based on general allegations in matrimonial disputes, without any substantial involvement of the candidate, contradicts the spirit of the 1958 Government Order, which aims to ensure that individuals with criminal antecedents are not appointed to public service. The judge highlighted:
“The policy behind the Government Order is to prevent persons with criminal antecedents from entering public service, not to exclude deserving candidates who are entangled in complaints that arise due to matrimonial discord.”
The court referred to previous judgments of the Supreme Court, notably Sandeep Kumar v. Commissioner of Police (2011) and Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016). In these cases, the Supreme Court had ruled that minor or trivial offences, especially those resulting from family disputes, should not be grounds for denying public employment. The judgments stressed that while serious offences involving moral turpitude should be considered during employment verification, petty disputes, particularly in matrimonial contexts, should be treated differently.
Key Arguments and Court’s Analysis:
1. Argument by the Petitioner:
Singh’s counsel, Chandan Sharma, argued that his client had cleared all stages of the recruitment process fairly and that the pending complaint was a result of family discord unrelated to his professional conduct. The petitioner contended that he was neither directly involved in the matrimonial dispute nor was there any evidence suggesting moral turpitude on his part. Furthermore, Singh had disclosed all necessary information and had not suppressed any details during the recruitment process.
2. Position of the Respondents:
The State, represented by Additional Chief Standing Counsel Monika Arya, argued that as per government orders and departmental guidelines, candidates with pending criminal cases could not be appointed to government service. The Chief Engineer’s decision to deny Singh’s appointment was based on reports from the Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, Mirzapur, which confirmed the pendency of a complaint case against him.
3. Court’s Analysis of Antecedent Verification:
Justice Munir found that the District Magistrate and Chief Engineer had failed to fulfill their obligations under the Government Order of 1958. The order requires a comprehensive assessment of a candidate’s character, considering both the nature of the offence and the candidate’s involvement. The District Magistrate had merely reported the existence of a pending complaint without providing any specific assessment of Singh’s character or suitability. The court observed:
“The District Magistrate is not to act as a post office and forward whatever the Police have reported to the Appointing Authority. He must independently assess whether the candidate’s criminal antecedents disqualify him for the position.”
Judgment:
The Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the rejection order of February 16, 2024, issued by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department. It directed the Chief Engineer to reconsider Singh’s case within one month, ensuring compliance with applicable rules and the court’s guidance.
Justice Munir emphasized that denying public employment based on general allegations in family disputes, particularly without specific evidence of involvement, is unjust. He noted that such mechanical denials compromise the principles of fairness and equal opportunity in public service recruitment.
The court cited the guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016), which require employers to consider the nature of the criminal case, the specific allegations, and the involvement of the candidate before denying employment. The court further remarked:
“Public employment is a fast-moving process, the chances to secure which denude with age. It is not justifiable to expect a candidate to forgo his opportunity, await trial for years, and regain his eligibility when the outcome may lead to acquittal.”
