After almost a decade of hard work and waiting (9 years and 10 months to be exact), a man achieved a state government job with a merit rank of 68. However, despite his efforts and success, the state government refused to issue him an appointment letter. The reason? His wife had filed a 498A case against him two years earlier. In 2013, the husband passed a merit-based exam when there were no criminal cases against him. However, for reasons unknown, the state government delayed his recruitment process for nearly 9 years.
RAJASTHAN : After almost a decade of hard work and waiting (9 years and 10 months to be exact), a man achieved a state government job with a merit rank of 68. However, despite his efforts and success, the state government refused to issue him an appointment letter. The reason? His wife had filed a 498A case against him two years earlier.
In 2013, the husband passed a merit-based exam when there were no criminal cases against him. However, for reasons unknown, the state government delayed his recruitment process for nearly 9 years. Finally, in 2022, the government issued a call letter to him for background verification.
During the verification in 2022, he mentioned that his wife had filed a 498A case against him two years earlier, and the case was still ongoing in the High Court. Once the government found out about the 498A case, they immediately rejected his application and decided not to send him the appointment letter.
The husband has to resort to multiple legal provisions to get out of this legal battle and get an appointment letter from the government despite the wife filing a 498A petition against him.
Background facts of the case
The government tried to discriminate against an eligible candidate based on criminal cases filed by his wife. The husband faced multiple charges, including Section 498A, 406, 323, and 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), after his wife filed a 498A case against him. Despite being eligible for the job, the government denied him the appointment letter, stating that his character was not fit for a government position due to the criminal cases filed against him.
The government defended its decision by referring to a 2019 circular that justified not hiring someone with such allegations.
During the court proceedings, the 2019 circular became the main point used against the husband’s eligibility for a government job.
The circular, titled ‘Guidelines for appointing authorities regarding character verification for Government Jobs’, was released on December 4, 2019. The government’s decision to deny him the job was challenged by the husband in the High Court.
The husband raised the following points before the High Court:
- Why should he be denied a government job just because his wife of 9 years filed a 498A case against him? The case was still pending, and no proof had been provided by that time.
- The government did not review his case properly and simply relied on the 2019 circular to deny him the job, even though he was on the merit list.
Rajasthan High Court Orders Reconsideration of Husband’s Case for Government Job
Following court orders, a co-ordinate bench was assigned to review and reconsider the husband’s case.
On March 8, 2024, the co-ordinate bench of the Rajasthan High Court passed a speaking order, denying the husband the government job, even though he was on the merit list. In response, the husband filed a petition against this order in the Rajasthan High Court.
Justice Arun Monga of the Rajasthan High Court, after reviewing the order, commented:
“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 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 against him, which are yet to be proved.”
Following this, Justice Arun Monga of the Rajasthan High Court ordered the state government to form an expert committee to reconsider the husband’s case. The High Court also instructed the government to consider a similar case precedent in Avtar Singh vs Union of India.
However, the government failed to form the expert committee to review the case, according to the husband. He argued that the committee did not consider the Avtar Singh judgment and merely relied on the 2019 circular, denying him the job again. After receiving the committee’s report on July 25, 2024, the husband quickly filed a writ petition in the High Court.
The Government failed to reply
When Justice Arun Monga asked the government to respond to the husband’s claim about why a committee was not formed to review his case, as per the court’s order, the government did not provide any reply for four months.
After this delay, the High Court decided to close the opportunity for the government to file a reply, stating that enough time had already been given.
Lawyers representing the husband also referred to a precedent :
Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, where the court ruled that:
“Pending criminal cases cannot be a valid reason to deny someone a government job appointment.“
ALSO READ: How Can Bedridden Grandparents Implicated in Sec 498A Case? Bombay HC
Article 14 and 21 are violated
After hearing the arguments, Justice Arun Monga of the Rajasthan High Court 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, the 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 further stated,
“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.”
Monark Gahlot, Partner at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, added,
“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.”
ALSO READ: 498A (Cruelty Law) Being Misused For Personal Vendetta Against Husband: Supreme Court
High Court Orders Appointment Letter for Husband, Subject to Criminal Trial Outcome
The Rajasthan High Court stated,
“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 an appointment letter to the petitioner, upon his approaching them with a web print of the instant order, within 30 days, 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 at Kochhar & Co., commented,
“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 guilt. A party, even an under-trial accused, is innocent until proven guilty.”
The judgment should act as a deterrent and serve as a reminder of the established legal principle that a final order of conviction may be grounds for disqualification, but not merely the pendency of criminal proceedings, unless the rules for such appointments explicitly state that even the presence of criminal proceedings is enough for disqualification.
Rajasthan High Court: Innocent Until Proven Guilty in Government Job Case
The Rajasthan High Court has made an important ruling regarding the disqualification of a candidate for a government job due to pending criminal charges. The court criticized the decision to reject the candidate’s application and declared it:
“Arbitrary, unreasonable, and lacking proper consideration. It ordered that the candidate should be considered for the job “subject to the final outcome of the pending criminal trial.”
This ruling highlights the importance of due process, individual rights, and judicial fairness, ensuring that government employment decisions are not influenced by unproven criminal charges. It also emphasizes that:
“only a conviction, not pending proceedings, warrants disqualification.”
Thus , conclusively if we look around at the increasing misuse of Section 498A by the women and the ongoing remarks of the hon’ble Supreme Court, in the Atul Subhash murder case we can see that , judgements and precedents like these , come around as a welcoming step and a relief to such husbands who suffer at the hands of the wife and their misused of the provision , initially brought in to serve the good of the wife.
READ MORE REPORTS ON SECTION 498A
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
