In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice J.J. Munir, addressed the issue of rejecting public employment to candidates based on criminal antecedents arising from family disputes. The case, Baba Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others (Writ – A No. 12055 of 2024), revolves around the cancellation of the selection of the petitioner, Baba Singh, for the post of Assistant Boring Technician in the Department of Minor Irrigation.
Background of the Case:
The petitioner, represented by Adv Chandan Sharma, had his selection for the post of Assistant Boring Technician annulled by an order dated February 16, 2024. The cancellation was justified on the grounds that Baba Singh’s elder brother and his wife were involved in marital discord, which led the wife’s father to file a criminal complaint against the elder brother and all his family members, including the petitioner, under Section 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives), Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Challenging the proceedings of the criminal complaint, Baba Singh filed an application under Section 482 No. 17829 of 2024 before the Allahabad High Court, which issued a notice and granted a stay on the further proceedings of the complaint pending before the Magistrate.
Legal Issues Involved:
The central legal issue in this case was whether the pendency of a criminal complaint arising from a family dispute could be grounds for denying public employment to a candidate. The court scrutinized whether the rejection of a character certificate and subsequent cancellation of employment were justifiable under the principles governing criminal antecedents in public employment.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
Justice Munir, while issuing notice to the District Magistrate, Mirzapur, and the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, U.P., Lucknow, made crucial observations regarding the misuse of Section 498A and its impact on public employment.
The court emphasized that the law intended to exclude individuals with criminal antecedents from public service does not envisage disqualifying candidates merely because they are implicated in family disputes. Justice Munir noted, “A complaint under Section 498A is by now reputed to be lodged against the entire family in order to pressurize them… If offenses of this kind are to be taken into consideration to judge a prospective candidate’s criminal antecedent, much disservice shall be done to the cause of public employment.”
Furthermore, the court remarked that the refusal of a character certificate should not be done mechanically or without due consideration of the circumstances. The District Magistrate was criticized for not sensitively handling the matter and was directed to provide a rationale for not issuing the character certificate. The court stated, “A character certificate too is not to be mechanically and blindly refused. The District Magistrate…ought to have sensitively dealt with the matter.”
Also Read
The court has ordered the District Magistrate, Mirzapur, and the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, U.P., Lucknow to file their affidavits by August 22, 2024, explaining why the impugned order should not be quashed and why directions should not be issued for the petitioner’s appointment.
The next hearing is scheduled for August 22, 2024, with the order communicated to the concerned officials within 24 hours by the Registrar (Compliance).
