The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition challenging the Uttar Pradesh Government’s refusal to appoint a Central government employee, Vishal Saraswat, as a Deputy Collector in the Provincial Civil Services (Executive), citing the pendency of a criminal case against him. The court ruled that an appointment in such a sensitive position cannot be granted automatically, even if the candidate is already employed in a Central government service.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Salil Kumar Rai, emphasizes the discretion of employers in assessing the suitability of candidates, particularly for roles involving greater sensitivity.
Case Background
The petitioner, Vishal Saraswat, is currently employed in the Indian Defence Estates Service (Group ‘A’ Gazetted Post) as the Chief Executive Officer of the Roorkee Cantonment Board. In addition to his existing role, Saraswat had successfully cleared the Combined State & Upper Subordinate Service Examination, 2019, securing the top position and earning a recommendation for appointment as Deputy Collector in the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Civil Services.
However, the petitioner disclosed during verification that he is an accused in a criminal case registered in 2017 under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 504, and 506 of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, arising from a matrimonial dispute. Although he is provisionally employed in a Central government service, his appointment to the state service was denied on the grounds of the pending criminal case.
Legal Issues
The primary question before the court was whether the pendency of a criminal case could disqualify an already employed Central government officer from being appointed to a higher post in a provincial service.
Arguments Presented:
– For the Petitioner: Counsel for the petitioner, Adv. Mayank, argued that the denial violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as Saraswat had disclosed the pending criminal case honestly. The counsel contended that the allegations stem from a matrimonial dispute and implicate the entire family, indicating falsity.
– For the State: The State, represented by Standing Counsel C.S.C. Kalyan Sundram Srivastava and Manoj Kumar Singh, argued that the nature of the criminal case involves serious charges and thus justified the rejection of the petitioner’s appointment. The State emphasized its discretion to determine the sensitivity of the post and assess the candidate’s suitability.
Court’s Observations
The court, while referencing the Supreme Court’s precedents, held:
1. Employer’s Discretion: The appointing authority is empowered to consider the nature of the criminal charges, the sensitivity of the post, and the candidate’s overall suitability.
2. No Automatic Parity: The fact that the petitioner holds a Central government post does not compel the State government to follow suit in granting a higher post.
3. Public Trust in Sensitive Posts: The court emphasized that roles such as Deputy Collector require stringent scrutiny and cannot overlook pending criminal cases.
4. Judicial Review Limitations: Judicial review of executive decisions is confined to ensuring fairness, absence of malice, and adherence to established norms. The court stated, “The comparative assessment of the sensitivities of different posts lies within the exclusive domain of the Executive.”
Verdict
Dismissing the petition, Justice Salil Kumar Rai upheld the Additional Chief Secretary’s order dated February 28, 2024, which rejected Saraswat’s claim. The court observed, “Two different public employers may have different views regarding the suitability of a candidate… One employer is not bound by the decision and discretion of the other.”
