The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has directed the Regional Director of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) to issue a joining letter to a candidate selected for the post of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS), ruling that the pendency of a criminal case in which the candidate is a declared juvenile and another case where a final closure report has been submitted cannot act as an absolute bar to public employment.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh allowed the writ petition, observing that depriving a candidate of their livelihood merely based on allegations without an adjudication of guilt is improper and unjustifiable.
Background of the Case
The ESIC had issued an advertisement on December 28, 2021, for recruitment to the posts of Upper Division Clerks (UDC), Stenographers, and Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) in the Uttar Pradesh region. The petitioner, Shusheel Tripathi, applied for the post of MTS under the unreserved category. After qualifying in the Phase-I preliminary examination and the Phase-II main examination held on June 5, 2022, his name appeared in the list of additional shortlisted candidates on June 10, 2024.
Following document verification on June 20, 2024, the petitioner received an offer of appointment on July 9, 2024. He accepted the offer and submitted his attestation form on July 18, 2024, at the ESIC Regional Office in Kanpur. In the form, he disclosed two pending criminal cases against him:
- N.C.R. No. 93 of 2015 under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Bhiti, Ambedkar Nagar, in which he was subsequently declared a juvenile on December 20, 2024.
- F.I.R. No. 50 of 2020 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC at Police Station Bhiti, Ambedkar Nagar, wherein the Investigating Officer had concluded the probe and submitted Final Report (Closure Report) No. 57 of 2022 before the trial court.
While other similarly situated candidates were permitted to join, the petitioner’s joining letter was withheld. On February 13, 2025, the ESIC informed him that as per Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines dated March 30, 2016, police verification is a condition precedent prior to the final acceptance of the appointment and the issuance of a joining letter.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the Petitioner: The petitioner was represented by counsels Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh and Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh. Arguing the matter, Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh submitted that the petitioner had completely disclosed his criminal history without any concealment. Regarding the 2015 case, the counsel pointed out that the petitioner had been declared a juvenile delinquent. He argued that under established law, the pendency of a criminal case does not bar a juvenile from being appointed to a job or service.
Regarding the 2020 F.I.R., the counsel contended that because the investigation had concluded with the submission of a Final Report (Closure Report) before the trial court, the case should not obstruct the petitioner’s appointment. He concluded that the petitioner had been waiting for his joining for a prolonged period, whereas other selected candidates were already in service.
Counsel for the Respondents: The respondents were represented by the Assistant Solicitor General of India (A.S.G.I.), the Chief Standing Counsel (C.S.C.) for the State, and advocate Mr. Ran Vijay Singh.
The counsel representing the ESIC (Opposite Parties No. 2 & 3), Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, submitted that while an offer of appointment was issued, the petitioner’s joining was withheld due to the disclosure of the two criminal cases and an adverse police verification report. He further asserted that the petitioner’s representation dated August 18, 2025, had been referred to the headquarters for a legal opinion, which was still pending. Consequently, the respondents argued that the relief sought by the petitioner was premature and the writ petition was not maintainable.
The Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court framed the primary issue as whether the pendency of these two specific cases could act as an absolute bar to the issuance of a joining letter.
1. Impact of the Case Against the Juvenile Delinquent
Analyzing the first case (N.C.R. No. 93 of 2015), the court referred to Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which provides for the removal of disqualifications attaching to a conviction. The court observed:
“A bare reading of the abovesaid provision, makes it abundantly clear that the juvenile, who is alleged to have committed any offence and has been dealt with under the provision of the ‘Act, 2000’, would not suffer any disqualification… Thus, the intent of the legislature is very clear that such juvenile even convicted for an offence, would not make him disqualified.”
The court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Union of India v. Ramesh Bishnoi (2019) 19 SCC 710, which held that even a conviction cannot be held against a minor for getting a job, as the core objective of the legislation is to obliterate the stigma of juvenile offences and reintegrate them into society.
The court also cited the coordinate Division Bench decision in Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti v. Pundarikaksh Dev Pathak (Writ A No. 9462 of 2025), noting:
“…even conviction of a juvenile has been found to be irrelevant qua his services and the present case stands on much better footings where trial against the petitioner is pending.”
2. Impact of Pending Consideration of a Closure Report
Addressing the second case, where the police filed a final closure report but the trial court had not yet passed an order, the High Court noted the procedural delays in trial courts due to heavy case backlogs. The court observed that if an Investigating Officer does not find substance in the allegations and files a final report, a candidate cannot be made to suffer indefinitely while awaiting the trial court’s decision:
“Assuming, if the trial court accepts the final report at a belated stage, such accused person, must suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated by any means. Infact this can never be the intent of any law.”
The Court added that if the charges are not serious and final reports are filed, candidates should not be deprived of job opportunities. If the trial court subsequently rejects the final report and the candidate is convicted, the department always retains the legal option to terminate the services of such an employee.
Relying on the landmark Supreme Court decision in State of Gujarat v. Surya Kant Chunilal Shah (1999) 1 SCC 529, the court emphasized:
“…the allegation of the involvement of the accused in a criminal case, does not mean that he is guilty for committing of the offence as is alleged against him… it would be highly improper and unjusticibale to deprive a person of his livelihood merely on the basis of his alleged involvement. Such decision of the deprival, would have far reaching consequences, for an accused, which is neither justified on common sense, nor under any law.”
Highlighting the humane application of law, the court remarked:
“The laws are meant for putting the society in order. The application of laws can never be in vacuum, but, infact, to all the extent, it impacts human being. If the law applies and resulted into soothing the heart of a person, infact in the real sense, the object of such law succeeds.”
The Decision
Finding merit in the writ petition, the High Court allowed the petition and issued a directive to the Regional Director, ESIC, Regional Office, Kanpur.
The court directed the authority to issue the joining letter to the petitioner, ignoring the pendency of the criminal cases against him, within thirty days from the date a certified copy of the court’s order is produced before the department.
Case Details
- Case Title: Shusheel Tripathi v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Labour And Employment New Delhi And 4 Others
- Case No.: WRIT A No. 12130 of 2025 (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:36632)
- Bench: Justice Shree Prakash Singh
- Date: May 21, 2026
- Counsel for Petitioner: Vijay Bahadur Singh, Rohit Kumar Singh
- Counsel for Respondents: A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Ran Vijay Singh
