FIR no ground to deny right to appointment: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, November 3

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that mere registration of a criminal case against a candidate can never be a ground to deny the right to participate in the recruitment process and to secure a public appointment.

Justice Rajbir Sehrawat was hearing a petition filed against a bank by a candidate through senior advocate Birender Singh Rana for quashing an order/communication, whereby the offer to appoint her as a probationary officer was cancelled.

What the Judge said

An FIR was merely a report regarding an alleged incident, which may or may not involve the commission of some offence. Therefore, mere receipt of first information by the police could not be raised to the level of a fact, rendering a candidate ineligible for public appointment. — Justice Rajbir Sehrawat

Allowing the petition, Justice Sehrawat asserted: “Reading anything adverse to a person only for the registration of an FIR is nothing but a systemic bias based upon negativism arising out of frustration due to the fact that criminal cases remain pending for years together and the courts are not in a position to take the trial to a logical end within reasonable time. Hence, a convenient method has been devised to deny benefits to the citizen by putting the factum of registration of the FIR against him in the forefront.”

Justice Sehrawat added that no FIR or criminal case was registered or pending against the petitioner when she applied for the post and even participated in the process. The FIR was registered during the selection process. Its registration was also disclosed by the petitioner to the respondents on the first available opportunity.

As such, it was not even the respondents’ case that the petitioner had concealed facts. Moreover, the case already stood quashed following High Court orders. As such, the criminal case was not pending when the appointment was declined.

Justice Sehrawat added that an FIR was merely a report regarding an alleged incident, which may or may not involve the commission of some offence. Therefore, mere receipt of first information by the police could not be raised to the level of a fact, rendering a candidate ineligible for public appointment. A person was to be presumed to be innocent till proven otherwise in a trial. The presumption could not be eclipsed in any other collateral process or for any other purpose.

Justice Sehrawat added that an irrelevant fact in this way was made a ground to deny a citizen the right to equality guaranteed by Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. This approach was “sworn enemy of the rule of law, and was required to be disapproved”.

Justice Sehrawat added that the absence of rule/regulation applicable to the respondents, prohibiting a candidate’s appointment merely on a criminal case registration, was not even in dispute.