The Allahabad High Court has held that a candidate cannot be denied a government job solely due to a pending criminal case of a trivial nature, particularly when the individual has transparently disclosed the matter during the selection process. The court emphasized that domestic disputes with general allegations should not automatically render a candidate unsuitable for public service.
The ruling came during the hearing of a service petition filed by Rakesh Kumar Verma. Verma had successfully cleared the selection process for the post of Junior Assistant, conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission. Despite being declared medically fit and meeting all selection criteria, his appointment was stalled by authorities citing a pending criminal case against him.
The criminal case in question involved charges under Sections 498-A (cruelty against wife), 323 (causing simple hurt), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The petitioner, represented by his counsel, argued that the First Information Report (FIR) consisted of “general and sweeping allegations” regarding dowry demands directed at all family members. It was specifically pointed out that no unique or specific role was attributed to Verma in the alleged incident.
The petitioner further contended that while the offenses were cognizable, they were not of such gravity or moral turpitude that they should disqualify him from holding a public office or performing the duties of a Junior Assistant.
Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar of the High Court’s Lucknow bench, while perusing the facts, observed that the nature of the allegations appeared to be a byproduct of a domestic dispute. The court noted that such trivial matters do not necessarily reflect on the character or suitability of a candidate for a government position.
The court observed:
“The allegations appeared to be trivial in nature and arose out of a domestic dispute, having no bearing on the discharge of duties attached to the post in question.”
The bench highlighted that since the candidate had disclosed the case, there was no concealment of facts, and the mere pendency of a case involving general matrimonial or domestic friction should not act as an absolute bar to employment.
Allowing the petition, the Allahabad High Court directed that the candidate’s appointment should not be blocked on the basis of this pending case. The court’s order reinforces the principle that the suitability for a government job should be assessed based on the gravity of the offense and its relevance to the functional requirements of the post, rather than a blanket disqualification for any pending litigation.
