Rajasthan HC Allows Man To Pursue Govt Job Despite Domestic Violence Case Filed By Wife

A man from Rajasthan, who secured a state government job with a merit rank of 68 after nearly a decade, was denied an appointment letter due to a 498A case filed by his wife.

Despite passing the merit-based examination in 2013, when no criminal charges were pending against him, the state government delayed his recruitment for almost nine years.

Photo Credit: Pexels

In 2022, when the recruitment process was initiated, he disclosed the ongoing 498A case, leading to the rejection of his candidature on grounds of alleged character unfitness, reported the Economic Times.

Government Cites Circular to Deny Appointment

The government justified its decision by referring to a 2019 circular titled *'Guidelines for appointing authorities regarding character verification for Government Jobs.'*

This circular, issued on 4 December 2019, became the primary basis for denying the appointment. The authorities argued that the pending criminal charges, including Sections 498A, 406, 323, and 494 of the Indian Penal Code, rendered the man unsuitable for government service.

Husband Challenges the Decision in High Court

The rejection was challenged in the Rajasthan High Court, where the husband contended:
1. The pending 498A case filed by his wife during their nine-year marriage was still under trial, with no findings of guilt.
2. The government failed to conduct a proper review of his case and mechanically applied the 2019 circular.
3. The breakdown of his marriage should not be construed as proof of criminality.

High Court Critiques Government's Decision

Justice Arun Monga, presiding over the case, criticised the government's reliance on the 2019 circular.

Referring to the decision issued by a co-ordinate bench on 8 March 2024, Justice Monga remarked: "Prima facie, having seen the impugned order dated 8 March 2024, which is being termed as a speaking order, it is anything but speaking. It does not clarify how the nature of the pending criminal trial in any manner impeached the duties to be performed by the petitioner (husband) and/or how it amounts to moral turpitude without there being any finding of facts and/or criminal culpability."

Justice Monga emphasised, "At best, the petitioner is merely under trial, and his fate is yet to be governed depending on the outcome of the trial. Mere breakdown 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, which are yet to be proved."

High Court Orders Expert Review of Government Circular

The Court instructed the government to form an expert committee to reconsider the case, directing it to consider the precedent set in "Avtar Singh v. Union of India". However, the committee failed to provide a proper review, leading the husband to file a writ petition challenging its report.

When asked why a detailed review was not conducted, the government failed to provide a response for four months. The High Court subsequently closed the opportunity for a reply, deeming sufficient time had been given.

Violation of Articles 14 and 21

Justice Monga highlighted that denying the man a government job based solely on pending criminal charges violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee equality and protection of personal liberty. "The circular dated 4 December 2019 and the impugned order unjustly bar his appointment based solely on pending criminal charges. 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 Court ruled.

Appointment Letter Ordered

The High Court directed the government to issue the appointment letter within 30 days, allowing the man to assume the position while the criminal trial remains pending. The Court added a condition requiring the petitioner to provide an undertaking that he would not claim equity if convicted in the trial.

Legal Experts Applaud the Ruling

Legal professionals praised the judgment for upholding constitutional principles and the presumption of innocence. Advocate Monark Gahlot commented, "Filing of charge sheet in a criminal trial cannot itself bar appointments. This judgment protects a candidate's right to equal treatment and fair trial."

Tushar Kumar, Advocate at the Supreme Court, said, "The Court's insistence on a speaking order and critique of the respondents' mechanical reliance on an executive circular strengthen the principle that administrative discretion must be exercised judiciously."

Deepak Chawla, Partner at Khaitan & Khaitan, remarked, "The Court clarified that pending criminal charges, in themselves, do not operate as an automatic disqualification for public employment, reaffirming the principle of 'innocence until proven guilty.'"