- Kalu Ram S/o Shri Shyam Lal Vs State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court)
- Background and Challenge to Appointment Cancellation
- Petitioner’s Appointment
- Disclosure of Pending Criminal Proceedings
- Submissions of the Parties
- Petitioner’s Submissions
- Respondents’ Submissions
- Rajasthan High Court’s Observations
- Full Disclosure of Criminal Proceedings
- Reliance on Amrit Pal Decision
- Reliance on Rahul Khatri Decision
- Finding on Cancellation of Appointment
- Directions of the Rajasthan High Court
- Cases Discussed
Kalu Ram S/o Shri Shyam Lal Vs State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court)
Summary: The Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the order dated 27.10.2025 cancelling the petitioner’s appointment as Animal Attendant solely because criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 119/2019, registered at Police Station Rawla, District Sri Ganganagar, under Sections 498A, 143 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, were pending.
The petitioner had been selected and appointed as Animal Attendant through appointment letter dated 23.09.2025 issued by the Staff Selection Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur. He had also submitted a police verification certificate dated 17.10.2025 and a personal declaration dated 13.04.2025, both disclosing the pendency of the criminal case. His counsel therefore contended that there was no concealment or non-disclosure and that mere registration or pendency of a criminal case was insufficient to cancel the appointment.
The respondents relied upon the Department of Personnel Circular dated 04.12.2019, particularly Clauses 1(V) and 1(VII), concerning character verification and appointment of persons against whom criminal proceedings were pending for specified offences, including Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It was also submitted that the pending proceedings amounted to moral turpitude.
The Court held that mere pendency of a criminal case did not warrant cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment, particularly when the petitioner had fully disclosed the criminal proceedings at the outset. The Court relied upon its earlier decision in Amrit Pal v State of Rajasthan & Ors., which held that mere pendency of criminal proceedings under Section 498A was not a ground for cancellation of appointment, and Rahul Khatri v State of Rajasthan & Anr., which held that pendency of criminal proceedings did not amount to moral turpitude without a conclusive finding of facts or criminal culpability.
Accordingly, the Court found cancellation of the appointment unjustified, allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 27.10.2025, and directed the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner. The Court further provided that if the petitioner was convicted of the offences in question, the respondent department would be open to taking appropriate action at that stage. The exercise was directed to be completed within one month from receipt of the order.
Background and Challenge to Appointment Cancellation
The writ petition challenged the order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the respondent department cancelling the petitioner’s appointment to the post of Animal Attendant.
The stated reason for cancellation was that criminal proceedings pursuant to FIR No. 119/2019, registered at Police Station Rawla, District Sri Ganganagar, remained pending against the petitioner under Sections 498A, 143 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Petitioner’s Appointment
The petitioner had been selected and appointed to the post of Animal Attendant through appointment letter dated 23.09.2025 issued by the Staff Selection Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
The petitioner subsequently challenged cancellation of that appointment, contending that the criminal case had been disclosed to the authorities and that its pendency could not, by itself, justify cancellation.
Disclosure of Pending Criminal Proceedings
A material circumstance before the Court was that the petitioner had not concealed the pending criminal proceedings.
The petitioner had submitted a police verification certificate dated 17.10.2025 and a personal declaration dated 13.04.2025 to the respondents. According to the petitioner’s submissions, both documents expressly disclosed the pendency of the criminal case.
The petitioner therefore contended that the case did not involve suppression or concealment of criminal proceedings.
Submissions of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been duly selected and appointed as Animal Attendant and had disclosed the pending criminal case in the documents furnished to the respondents.
It was further contended that mere registration of a criminal case was not sufficient ground for cancellation or termination of the appointment letter. Reliance was placed upon Rahul Khatri v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5046/2022 and Abhishek Vishnoi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19331/2023.
Respondents’ Submissions
Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the Department of Personnel Circular dated 04.12.2019 concerning character verification of candidates, particularly Clauses 1(V) and 1(VII).
It was submitted that the Circular stipulated that persons against whom criminal proceedings were pending for offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or offences enumerated in Chapters XVI and XVII thereof, would not be eligible for appointment.
The respondents further contended that pendency of criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounted to moral turpitude and consequently justified cancellation or termination of the appointment letter.
Rajasthan High Court’s Observations
Full Disclosure of Criminal Proceedings
After hearing the parties and examining the material on record, the Court considered the petitioner’s disclosure of the pending criminal proceedings to be significant.
The Court held that mere pendency of a criminal case did not warrant cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment, particularly when full disclosure had been made through the police verification certificate dated 17.10.2025 and personal declaration dated 13.04.2025.
Reliance on Amrit Pal Decision
The Court referred to its earlier decision in Amrit Pal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13198/2024.
In that decision, the Court had held that mere pendency of criminal proceedings under Section 498A was not a ground for cancellation of appointment. The Court had also observed that a person facing pending criminal proceedings remained presumed innocent until proven guilty and that pending criminal trial, unless followed by conviction, could not bar appointments.
The Court reproduced the relevant portions of the Amrit Pal decision in the present order and relied upon its reasoning in deciding the petitioner’s case.
Reliance on Rahul Khatri Decision
The Court also relied upon Rahul Khatri v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5046/2022.
In that matter, the Court had held that a matrimonial dispute did not, in the circumstances considered there, impinge upon the nature of duties to be performed by the petitioner and did not amount to moral turpitude without a finding of facts or criminal culpability.
The Court noted the earlier observation that a person facing trial was, at best, an undertrial whose fate remained dependent upon the outcome of the trial.
Finding on Cancellation of Appointment
Applying the aforesaid reasoning, the Rajasthan High Court concluded that cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment letter dated 27.10.2025 merely on the ground that criminal proceedings were pending against him was not justified.
The Court therefore allowed the writ petition and quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 27.10.2025.
Directions of the Rajasthan High Court
The Court directed the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner.
The Court further directed that, in case the petitioner was convicted of the aforementioned offences, it would be open to the respondent department to take appropriate action at that stage.
The exercise was directed to be completed within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
All pending applications, if any, were also directed to stand disposed of.
Cases Discussed
- Amrit Pal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13198/2024 — Rajasthan High Court
- Rahul Khatri v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5046/2022 — Rajasthan High Court
- Abhishek Vishnoi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19331/2023 — Rajasthan High Court
- Avtar Singh v. Union of India (Supra) — cited in the supplied material
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 27.10.2025 (Annex. 4), passed by respondentdepartment, whereby the petitioner’s appointment to the post of Animal Attendant was cancelled solely on the ground that criminal proceedings pursuant to FIR No. 119/2019, registered at Police Station Rawla, District Sri Ganganagar, remain pending against the petitioner under Sections 498A, 143, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. While elucidating the factual matrix, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was selected and appointed to the post of Animal Attendant vide appointment letter dated 23.09.2025 (Annex.-3) issued by the Staff Selection Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. He further contended that the petitioner had duly submitted a police verification certificate dated 17.10.2025 (Annex. 7), as well as a personal declaration dated 13.04.2025 (Annex. 8) to the respondents, both explicitly disclosing the pendency of the aforementioned criminal case. Therefore, the present matter does not involve any non-disclosure/concealment of pending criminal proceedings.
4. Moreover, learned counsel contended that mere registration of a criminal case is not sufficient ground for cancellation/termination of appointment letter. He relied upon judgments passed by this Hon’ble High Court in Rahul Khatri v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5046/2022 and Abhishek Vishnoi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19331/2023.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on Circular dated 04.12.2019 (Annex. R/1) issued by Department of Personnel, State Government with regard to character verification of candidates, particularly Clauses 1(V) and 1(VII), which stipulates that persons against whom criminal proceedings are pending for offences under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or offences enumerated in Chapters XVI and XVII thereof, shall not be eligible for appointment.
6. Learned counsel further contended that pendency of criminal proceedings against petitioner amounts to moral turpitude which begets cancellation/termination of the said appointment letter.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. In considered view of this Court, the mere pendency of a criminal case, does not warrant cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment, particularly where full disclosure has been made by the petitioner at the outset, vide police verification certificate dated 17.10.2025 (Annex. 7), as well as a personal declaration dated 13.04.2025 (Annex. 8).
9. This Hon’ble High Court in Amrit Pal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13198/2024 held that mere pendency of criminal proceedings under Section 498A is not a ground for cancellation of appointment. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below:
“10. I am unable to convince myself with the insipidity of the argument adopted by the learned counsel for respondents that since the charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, 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 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 a flawed decision-making on the part of the respondents.
11. The impugned order (08.03.2024) and committee report (01.03.2024) rejecting the petitioner’s candidature for the Lower Division Clerk post are thus arbitrary, unreasonable, and lack proper consideration, necessitating judicial intervention herein to quash the same. It is accordingly so ordered. Pertinently, at the time of the job advertisement, no trial proceedings were pending. The respondent’s delay deprived the petitioner of a rightful appointment. In any case, pending criminal trial, unless of course proven guilty by way of conviction, cannot bar appointments.”
10. Moreover, this Hon’ble High Court in Rahul Khatri v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5046/2022 held that mere pendency of criminal proceedings does not amount to moral turpitude without any conclusive finding of facts or of criminal culpability. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below:
“7. Having heard and perused the record, I am of the opinion that being a matrimonial dispute, same does not in any manner impinge on the nature of duties to be performed by the petitioner. It does not even amount to a moral turpitude without there being any finding of facts and or criminal culpability. At best, the petitioner is merely an under trial and his fate is yet to be governed depending on the outcome of the trial. Furthermore, possibility of a compromise between husband and wife cannot be ruled out at subsequent stage.
9. The action of respondents infringes upon the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution i.e. denying equal treatment and personal liberty without a fair trial. Pertinently, at the time of the job advertisement, no FIR or trial proceedings were pending. The respondent’s delay deprived the petitioner of a rightful appointment. In any case, pending criminal trial, unless of course proven guilty by way of conviction, cannot bar appointments.”
11. Therefore, the cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment letter dated 27.10.2025 (Annex. 4) on the ground that criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner, is not justified.
12. In view of the aforesaid reasons and judicial pronouncements, the present writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 27.10.2025 (Annex.4) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner and in case the petitioner is convicted of the aforementioned offences, it will be open for the respondent department to take appropriate action at that stage.
13. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.
14. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
