Mere Appointment In Central Govt Services Doesn't Entitle Employment In State Services: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that merely because an employee in a part of the Central Government services will not entitle him to appointment in Provincial Services. It was held the State Government cannot mechanically appoint him despite having criminal case pending against such employee.While dealing with a case where the Petitioner was booked under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,...
The Allahabad High Court has held that merely because an employee in a part of the Central Government services will not entitle him to appointment in Provincial Services. It was held the State Government cannot mechanically appoint him despite having criminal case pending against such employee.
While dealing with a case where the Petitioner was booked under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Justice Salil Kumar Rai held
“Two different public employers may have different views regarding the suitability of a candidate for appointment and one employer is not bound by the decision and discretion of the other employer. The State Government cannot be saddled with the liability to mechanically and slavishly follow the decision taken by the Central Government or the Rajya Sabha Secretariat.”
Factual Background
In 2017, petitioner's sister-in-law lodged criminal case under Sections 498-A / 323 / 324 / 504 / 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against petitioner, his elder brother and his family member. On 21.12.2020, petitioner was granted provisional appointment as Assistant Legislative Committee – Protocol / Executive Officer in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat. The said appointment was subject to the outcome of the criminal case.
Subsequently, petitioner was selected and posted as Chief Executive Officer, Roorkee Cantonment Board, Uttarakhand under the Ministry of Defence. Petitioner was declared successful in Combined State & Upper Subordinate Service Examination, 2019 and secure position No.1. Upon declaration of criminal history, a report was sought from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, whereby it was communicated that petitioner had no disciplinary enquiry pending against him.
After several reminders, the Additional Chief Secretary, Appointment Section – III, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow rejected the representation of the petitioner based on charges in the criminal case. The writ Court set aside the order and remanded the case back to the authority for fresh consideration. However, the representation of the petitioner was again rejected.
Petitioner challenged the rejection as being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was pleaded that once the petitioner was an employee of the Central Government in Group-A Service, the State Government could not reject his appointment on grounds of the criminal case. It was pleaded that the criminal prosecution lodged against the entire family was false, a fact which was not considered by the Additional Chief Secretary.
High Court Verdict
The Court observed that the petitioner had truthfully disclosed the pendency of the criminal case against him at the time of submitted the application form.
In Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors, the Supreme Court held that even in cases of honourable acquittal, an employer can reject the appointment of a person based on the nature of acquisitions and offences alleged. It was held that pendency of criminal trial is a valid ground for rejection of candidature as eventual conviction might make the person unsuitable for the job.
In State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. S.K. Nazrul Islam, the Supreme Court had held that it was the duty of the employer to verify the antecedents of a candidate. It was held that a candidate who has not been acquitted cannot possibly be suitable for employment.
Further, Justice Rai took note of Supreme Court's holding that executive and administrative decisions can only be interfered with when they are infected with malafide or bias.
“At this stage, it would also be relevant to note that there may be certain actions and matters which are not susceptible to judicial process because of want of any judicially manageable standards to judge them. The correctness of such actions are also not to be judged by the Constitutional Courts in exercise of power of judicial review,” held Justice Rai.
Observing that the case against the petitioner involved moral turpitude, the Court held that merely being a part of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat did not make him eligible for appointment in the state government. In light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh, it was held that the State was right in adjudicating on the suitability of the petitioner and rejecting his candidature.
While dismissing the writ petition, the Court observed that comparing the sensitivities of the post was not within the domain of judicial review. Since no malafide or bias could be shown, the order of the Additional Chief Secretary, Appointment Section – III, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow was upheld.
Case Title: Vishal Saraswat v. State of U.P. and Another [WRIT - A No. - 5252 of 2024]