Mere Pendency of Matrimonial Criminal Case No Ground to Deny Civil Post: Rajasthan High Court Orders Appointment of RAS Candidate

“Allegations Arising from Marital Discord Without Moral Turpitude Cannot Impinge on Suitability for Public Employment” - In a significant verdict protecting the rights of candidates facing criminal cases stemming from personal disputes, the Rajasthan High Court held that “the mere pendency of a criminal case, especially one arising from a matrimonial discord and not involving moral turpitude, cannot disqualify a candidate from public employment.” Justice Arun Monga directed the State to issue appointment orders to the petitioner, who had cleared all stages of the RAS recruitment but was denied appointment due to an FIR lodged by her estranged husband.

“Disqualification based merely on pendency of a case is untenable — Such clause cannot override binding constitutional and judicial principles.”
XXX , a widow, had successfully cleared the Rajasthan Administrative Services exam, including the final interview and medical test. However, she was denied appointment due to FIR No. 530/2020, lodged by her husband during the pendency of a matrimonial dispute, under Sections 452, 341, 323, 143 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. A final report had already dropped the Arms Act offence, and a trial was ongoing under minor IPC sections. Despite full and honest disclosure in the verification form, she was denied employment based on the pendency of the case.

The petitioner pleaded that the FIR arose from a strained matrimonial relationship, involved no moral turpitude, and was maliciously motivated. She contended that Condition No. 15 of the recruitment advertisement, which disqualified candidates merely under trial, was illegal and arbitrary.

Justice Arun Monga, in a detailed and strongly worded judgment, held that “offences relating to marital discord not involving any element of dishonesty, corruption or moral turpitude cannot be equated with offences that impair one’s integrity or public trust.”

The Court stated emphatically: “The FIR itself stems from a matrimonial dispute… The role attributed to the petitioner is not of such a nature so as to impinge on the duties to be performed in a civil post.”

Rejecting the State’s mechanical application of disqualification, the Court said:

“Such disqualification cannot be pressed into service in every case… The circular dated 04.12.2019 cannot override the settled position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India.”

The Court criticized the authorities for failing to apply their minds or communicate any reasoned decision:

“Rules of natural justice require that the petitioner be informed in writing. She was left to suffer exclusion without explanation, rendering her remedyless.”

On the broader implications of denying employment due to pending personal disputes, the Court observed:
“Youthful indiscretions or vindictive FIRs from family feuds should not become a permanent stigma preventing capable individuals from public service.”
“If allegations arise purely from a personal relationship and are not of serious criminality or moral failing, the pendency of such a case cannot by itself be a bar.”
Terming the disqualification arbitrary and contrary to constitutional principles, the Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition and ordered the State to proceed with the formal appointment of the petitioner to the RAS cadre. The Court reminded the government that “reformative justice and fair opportunity must guide employment decisions, especially when candidates have acted in good faith and disclosed all facts truthfully.”

Date of Decision: 27 March 2025