Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Conducts Sensitive Research In Nuclear Science: Bombay HC Upholds Rejection Of Candidature Citing Criminal Antecedents

"A candidate interested in joining such a sensitive institution is expected to have a flawless character and integrity without blemishes. An individual with criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. He should be reliable and trustworthy. He was expected to state all the required information honestly", the court observed.

Justices S. V. Gangapurwala and R. N. Laddha dismissed a writ petition challenging rejection of petitioner's candidature for a post at the BARC.

The petitioner was selected for the post of Hospital Work Assistant at BARC. He denied that he was facing any criminal case in his attestation form. BARC issued a show-cause notice to him for the same. Petitioner claimed that he did not disclose that there was a criminal matter pending because he had not committed any offence and that he was acquitted, too. BARC did not accept this and cancelled his candidature on grounds of suppression of material information.

His pleas challenging this decision were dismissed by Central Administrative Tribunal and Bombay High Court. However, the Supreme Court granted him leave to make representation in light of the decision in Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. to the concerned authority. BARC rejected such representation and this decision was challenged before the High Court.

The petitioner's advocate submitted that non-disclosure of pendency of criminal case was the petitioner's bonafide mistake. His representations have not been considered in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh.

Additional Government Pleader submitted that on the date when the Petitioner filled the application form, a criminal case was pending against him. His later acquittal on its own would not be sufficient to wash away the suppression of material facts.

The court observed that the attestation form clearly warns the declarant that any false statement may lead to the cancellation of his appointment. The petitioner suppressed required information.

The court noted that the Petitioner was aware of the pendency of the criminal case. Further, the acquittal had not already been recorded before filing of attestation form.

The court also noted that nothing on record suggests that the decision to reject the candidature of the petitioner was in any way malafide.

The court relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Abhijeet Singh Pawar and held that the petitioner's perception that he was innocent was not sufficient to justify non-disclosure of the pendency of criminal case.

"He had to make a declaration and leave it to the employer to determine the effect of the pendency of a criminal case on his upcoming job", the court noted adding that a person interesting in join BARC which conducts sensitive research into nuclear science should be reliable and trustworthy.

"Besides, looking at the sensitive nature of activities undertaken at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, we cannot say that the employer's decision to reject the Petitioner's representation was unreasonable or arbitrary", the court concluded.

The court dismissed the writ petition stating that the decision to cancel the petitioner's candidature was entirely correct and required no interference.

Case no. – Writ Petition (L) No. 16826 of 2021

Case title – Swapnil Prakash Parab v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Coram – Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice R. N. Laddha

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment