Dismissing a writ petition filed by one Vishal Saraswat, Justice Salil Kumar Rai observed, “Two different public employers may have different views regarding the suitability of a candidate for appointment and one employer is not bound by the decision and discretion of the other employer.
The state government cannot be saddled with the liability to mechanically and slavishly follow the decision taken by the central government or the Rajya Sabha secretariat.”
The petitioner was granted a provisional appointment as Assistant Legislative Committee – Protocol / Executive Officer in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat on December 21, 2020.
The said appointment was subject to the outcome of the criminal case pending against the petitioner as the sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the petitioner had lodged a case of harassment for dowry against the petitioner and his entire family members in the year 2017.
Subsequently, the petitioner was declared successful in the combined state and upper subordinate service examination, 2019 conducted by the Public Service Commission of Uttar Pradesh state and secured first position After disclosure of the pending criminal case, a report was sought from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, whereby it was communicated that petitioner had no disciplinary inquiry pending against him.
However, the additional chief secretary, appointment section – III, government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow on February 28, 2024, rejected the representation of the petitioner based on charges in the criminal case.
Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before the high court challenging the rejection as being violative of Article 14 (right to equality) and 16 (right to equality in the matter of public employment) of the Constitution of India.
It was argued that once the petitioner was an employee of the central government in group-A service, the state government could not reject his appointment on grounds of the criminal case.
It was further argued that the criminal prosecution lodged against the entire family was false, which is a fact that was not considered by the additional chief secretary of the UP government.
In its judgment, the court observed that the petitioner had truthfully disclosed the pendency of the criminal case against him at the time of submitting the application form.
The court relied on the case of Avtar Singh Vs Union of India (2016), in which it was held that the pendency of a criminal trial is a valid ground for rejection of candidature as eventual conviction might make the person unsuitable for the job.
Further, the court took note of the apex court’s holding that executive and administrative decisions can only be interfered with when they are infected with malafide or bias.
Observing that the case against the petitioner involved moral turpitude, the court held that merely being a part of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat did not make him eligible for appointment in the state government.
In light of the decision of the apex court in Avtar Singh, it was held that the state was right in adjudicating the suitability of the petitioner and rejecting his candidature.
While dismissing the writ petition in its judgment dated November 22, the court upheld the decision of the additional chief secretary, appointment section – III, government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, observing that since no malafide or bias could be shown, the aforesaid order is upheld.
