Appointment to govt post can't be denied just because of dowry case: HC

The Court asked should in a case like this, a candidate selected for his merit through a public examination, be banished from the privileges of public employment

The Allahabad High Court has held that appointment to a government post cannot be denied to a candidate merely because he has been implicated in a dowry case.

Justice J J Munir observed, "Given the social conditions prevalent in society, while women do become victims of cruelty in their matrimonial homes, it is equally true, and by now, judicially acknowledged, that for slight or no infraction, the entire family of the husband is either reported to the police or brought before the criminal court by a disenchanted wife or her relatives, alleging cruelty."  "Should in a case like this, a candidate selected for his merit through a public examination, who otherwise has a clean image and is part of the mainstream society, be banished from the privileges of public employment?" the court added.

 

Petitioner Baba Singh had applied for the post of assistant boring technician in the Minor Irrigation Department of Uttar Pradesh. He appeared in the relevant examination and cleared it. He was then called for a verification of his documents.

On his arrival, however, the authorities refused to issue an appointment letter to Singh on the ground that there was a pending criminal case against him under Sections 498A (cruelty against woman for dowry) and 323 (voluntary causing hurt) of the IPC, 1860 and section 4 of the Dowry Prevention Act, 1961.

In response, the petitioner filed a writ petition praying that the respondents be directed to reconsider his appointment on the basis of the selection results.

The court, while disposing of the petition, directed that the petitioner be allowed to submit a fresh representation to the chief engineer, Minor Irrigation Department and that the chief engineer decide the representation in accordance with law.

Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his representation which was rejected by the chief engineer, Lucknow on February 16 once again on the grounds that a criminal case was pending against him. Aggrieved by it, he filed a writ petition.

It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that when he applied for the post, he was unaware of the institution of a criminal case against him. It was submitted that the case in question was filed by his elder brother's father-in-law against his entire family, barring his elder brother, for mentally and physically harassing the daughter for dowry.

Subsequently, a summoning order was issued on the basis of which the petitioner was declined the appointment letter.

The court held that merely being implicated in a criminal case does not de facto form a basis for rejecting the candidate. In this case, the person seeking appointment was the brother of the main accused and had been implicated in case for dowry.

Justice Munir allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated February 16 passed by the chief engineer. He directed the chief engineer to consider the petitioner's case for appointment to the post of assistant boring technician in accordance with the recommendations of the selection commission within a month.

It was pleaded that the entire proceedings of the criminal case had been challenged by the petitioner where the court issued notice to the complainant and stayed further proceedings in the complaint.