In a decisive ruling, the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad held that criminal cases arising from matrimonial disputes should not be classified as acts of “moral turpitude” that justify denying individuals the right to pursue higher education. The court reversed the State’s withdrawal of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) granted to a medical officer from Nanded, allowing him to continue his post-graduate studies despite a pending criminal case filed by his spouse.
Case Background
The petitioner, a medical officer, had applied for an NOC to participate in the All India Ayush Post Graduate Entrance Test (AIAPGET) 2024. Initially, the Deputy Director of Health Services granted the NOC, recognizing his eligibility. However, the health department revoked this approval in September 2024 after discovering an active criminal case against him, citing Clause 4.5 of a Government Resolution (G.R.) dated July 19, 2023. This clause disqualifies government employees with criminal cases from pursuing further education.
The criminal case against the petitioner, filed by his wife, included charges under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 494 (bigamy) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as sections of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. Represented by Advocate G.J. Karne, the petitioner argued that his educational rights, derived from the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, should not be impeded due to a personal dispute unrelated to his professional conduct or moral standing.
Key Legal Issues
The primary legal issue was whether Clause 4.5 of the Government Resolution, barring individuals with pending criminal cases from pursuing higher studies, was applicable in this instance. The petitioner argued that the clause was being unfairly applied, as his criminal case stemmed from a personal, matrimonial dispute rather than an action reflecting poor moral character.
Countering the petitioner’s arguments, Advocate A.M. Phule, representing the State, argued that the NOC was improperly obtained, as the petitioner had not disclosed the pending case. Phule cited a previous case, Kedar Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra, in which the court allowed the withdrawal of NOCs when individuals had withheld relevant information.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
The Division Bench, comprising Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar and Justice Vibha Kankanwadi, sided with the petitioner, underlining the significance of the right to education under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court stated:
“Right to education is implicit in the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed and flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution… This right cannot be denied or taken away merely due to the pendency of any departmental proceedings or criminal proceedings against the employee.”
The court held that the criminal case against the petitioner, arising from a personal, matrimonial dispute, did not constitute “moral turpitude.” In the court’s view, such cases should not prevent an individual from pursuing educational or career advancement. The judgment referenced a similar precedent in Kailas Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra, where it was emphasized that government policies restricting fundamental rights must be applied cautiously, especially when involving personal matters.
Final Order
The Bombay High Court issued the following directives:
1. NOC Reinstatement: The court quashed the health department’s withdrawal of the petitioner’s NOC and directed it to be restored within one week, allowing him to remain eligible for AIAPGET 2024.
2. Accommodation in Admissions: The court ensured that the petitioner would be granted a seat in AIAPGET 2024, based on an earlier interim order dated September 26, 2024, which reserved a seat for him.
