What if you study hard and manage to secure a government job through a merit based competitive exam but then your wife files a 498A case which results in you being ineligible for the job. This is exactly what happened with a person from Rajasthan who managed to secure a state government job with merit rank 68 after almost 10 years (9 years 10 months) after passing the exam. However, the state government denied giving him an appointment letter as his wife had filed a 498A case against him 2 years prior.The husband passed the merit-based exam in 2013 when there was no criminal case active against him. However, the state government, for reasons unknown, delayed his recruitment process by almost 9 years. The government issued him a call letter in 2022 which was subject to verification.
During the background verification process in 2022 he disclosed that his wife filed 498A case against him 2 years ago and it is currently on trial at the High Court. As soon as the government learnt about the 498A case they rejected his candidature and denied sending him the appointment letter.
Read below to know how this husband used key legal provisions to fight against the government to secure an appointment letter for the job despite his wife filing 498A and multiple other criminal cases.
Government used the 498A case to discriminate against an eligible candidate
The Government had a problem with the background of the husband against whom the police had already filed a chargesheet imposing section 498A, 406, 323, and 494. The government denied the job on the ground that his character is unfit for a government job as his wife filed criminal cases against him. A 2019 circular was also cited by the government defending this decision.
This circular later on during the courtroom proceedings became the primary point of argument against the husband getting the government job. The Circular is titled ‘Guidelines for appointing authorities regarding character verification for Government Jobs’ and was released on December 4, 2019. This decision of the government was challenged before the High Court by the husband.The husband raised the following issues before the High Court:
- Why can’t he get a government job when his wife of 9 years of marriage filed a 498A case. This case is still pending trial, and nothing was proved as of that date.
- The government did not properly review his case and blindly cited the circular as reason for denial of government job despite him being on the merit list.
- Mere breakdown of marriage does not mean the husband is a criminal.
Rajasthan High Court orders the co-ordinate bench to reconsider the husband’s case
Acting on court orders a co-ordinate bench was tasked to investigate and reconsider the case.
A speaking order was passed by the co-ordinate bench of the High Court on March 8, 2024, denying the government job to the husband who was on the merit list. Subsequently a petition was filed by him in Rajasthan High Court against this order.
Justice Arun Monga after reading this order said: “Prima facie, having seen the impugned order dated March 8, 2024, which is being termed as a speaking order, it is anything but speaking. It (this order by the co-ordinate bench) does not clarify as to how the nature of pending criminal trial in any manner impeached the duties to be performed by the petitioner (husband) and/or how does it amount to a moral turpitude without there being any finding of facts and or criminal culpability.”
“At best, the petitioner (husband) is merely under trial and his fate is yet to be governed depending on the outcome of the trial….Be that as it may, mere break down of a marriage cannot be treated as if the husband is the sole erring party just because his wife has chosen to press criminal charges against him, which are yet to be proved.”
Rajasthan High Court orders expert committee to review the government circular
Justice Arun Monga of Rajasthan High Court ordered the state government to form an expert committee and reconsider the husband’s case. The High Court also ordered the government to consider a precedent in a similar judgement in Avtar Singh vs Union of India.
However, the government failed to constitute an expert committee to review his case, contended the husband. He said the committee did not even consider Avtar Singh’s judgment and blindly quoted the 2019 circular and again denied him the government job. After receiving the committee’s report on July 25, 2024, he filed a writ petition in the High Court without delay.
When asked why a proper review of the husband’s case was not done the Government failed to give any reply at all
When Justice Arun Monga asked the government to counter the contention of the husband that why a committee for reviewing his case was not formed as per court’s order, the government did not reply for four months. After expiry of the fourth month, the High Court closed the opportunity to file a reply to the query as it deemed enough time was already given.
Lawyers representing the husband also cited precedent set by case: Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors where it was held that on account of pendency of criminal case the petitioner cannot be denied appointment of government job.
Article 14 and 21 of constitution of India is violated if a husband with pending 498A case is denied government job
Justice Arun Monga of Rajasthan High Court after hearing the arguments said, “I am unable to convince myself with the insipidity of the argument adopted by the learned counsel for respondents (government) that since the charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, petitioner does not deserve to be appointed. Despite allegations under IPC Sections 498A, 406, 323, and 494, the petitioner is presumed innocent until proven guilty.”
The High Court also said, “The circular dated 04.12.2019 and the impugned order unjustly bar his appointment based solely on pending criminal charges. The action of respondents infringes upon the petitioner’s rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, denying equal treatment and personal liberty without a fair trial. Moreover, failure to apply the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Avtar Singh (Supra) regarding pending criminal cases indicates nothing else but flawed decision-making on the part of the respondents.”
“Filing of charge sheet in a criminal trial arising out of a matrimonial dispute cannot itself bar appointment to government service, unless proven guilty by conviction. The Rajasthan High Court judgment protects a candidate’s right to equal treatment and fair trial under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and re-affirms the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty,” says Monark Gahlot, Partner, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.
High Court orders government to give appointment letter to husband with pending 498A case
The High court said, “By way of interim order dated 09.10.2015 one post was directed to be kept vacant for the petitioner in the selection process. The respondents are directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner, upon his approaching them with web print of instant order, within a period of 30 days thereof, which shall be subject to the final outcome of the pending criminal trial. The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that in case he is convicted in the criminal trial, he shall not claim any equity on the basis of the instant order.”
Shiv Sapra, Partner, Kochhar & Co. says, “Despite a plethora of rulings on this and similar issues, the pendency of criminal proceedings has often been used as a perceptive ground for rejecting such candidatures, whereas Courts in India have repeatedly held that the pendency of criminal proceedings is not in itself a declaration of a guilt. A party, even an under-trial Accused, is innocent until proven guilty. The judgment should serve as a deterrent and a reminder of the already established jurisprudence that a final order of conviction may be a ground for disqualification, and not mere pendency of proceedings, unless the rules regarding such appointments mandate the lack of a criminal proceeding itself.”
Deepak Chawla, Partner, Khaitan & Khaitan, says, “The High Court of Rajasthan has delivered a notable ruling clarifying that pending criminal charges, in themselves, do not operate as an automatic disqualification for public employment. The case involved the rejection of a Lower Division Clerk applicant facing allegations under Sections 498A, 406, 323, and 494 of the Indian Penal Code from a matrimonial dispute. Justice Arun Monga found the rejection order lacked cogent reasoning, failing to address how unproven allegations alone could impair suitability for public service.
Relying on the presumption of innocence, the Court invoked the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and reaffirmed the ratio from Mukesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan. It underscored that only a conviction, not pending proceedings, warrants disqualification. The blanket denial was deemed to violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and protection of personal liberty.
Accordingly, the Court directed that the petitioner be appointed within 30 days, with a caveat that future conviction might justify termination. This ruling affirms due process rights while balancing accountability in public employment.”
Innocent until proven guilty: High Court
The High Court said, “The impugned order (08.03.2024) and committee report (01.03.2024) rejecting the petitioner’s candidature for the post are thus arbitrary, unreasonable, and lack proper consideration, necessitating judicial intervention herein to quash the same. It is accordingly so ordered…..In any case, pending criminal trial, unless of course proven guilty by way of conviction, cannot bar appointments.”
Source Link
