Manish Tanwar vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordship may be pleased to accept this writ petition and may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction in the nature thereof:

(1) to quash and set aside the order dated 08.07.2020 (Annexure-1) passed by respondent.

(2) to direct the respondents to immediately give the appointment to the petitioner Manish Tanwar S/o Shri Tulsi Ram Tanwar on the post of Helper II.;

(3) to direct to the respondents that the petitioner's appointment should be treated from the date when lesser meritorious candidates were given appointment and further petitioner be allowed consequential benefits including notional benefits and seniority from the date persons with less merit were given appointment.

(4) to call for the record pertains to the matter;

(5) to pass any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the petitioner.

(6) The costs of the litigation may kindly be granted to the petitioner."

Brief facts of the case are that in pursuant to the advertisement No.2/2018-19 (Annexure-2), the petitioner applied for the post of Helper Grade-II and being successful in the selection process, the petitioner was called by the respondent for document verification and the respondents vide order dated 08.07.2020 informed the petitioner that a decision has been taken by the committee constituted by the respondents that the petitioner is not found fit by the committee to appoint him on the post of Helper Grade-II, as a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in which he was acquitted by the trial Court vide order dated 20.02.2020 giving him benefit of doubt. The order passed by the respondents dated 08.07.2020 has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a bare reading of the judgment passed by the trial Court shows that there was no evidence against the petitioner hence it is an honourable acquittal whereas the learned trial Court has wrongly mentioned as acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. Counsel further submits that the order passed by the respondents dated 08.07.2020 is arbitrary and has been passed without application of mind.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar reported (2018) 18 SCC 733 in para Nos.13, 14, 15 & 16 has observed as under:-

"13. In Avtar Singh though this Court was principally concerned with the question as to non-disclosure or wrong disclosure of information, it was observed in paragraph 38.5 that even in cases where a truthful disclosure about a concluded case was made, the employer would still have a right to consider antecedents of the candidate and could not be compelled to appoint such candidate.

In the present case, as on the date when the respondent had applied, a criminal case was pending against him. Compromise was entered into only after an affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed. On the issue of compounding of offences and the effect of acquittal under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., the law declared by this Court in Mehar Singh, specially in paras 34 and 35 completely concludes the issue. Even after the disclosure is made by a candidate, the employer would be well within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate. While so considering, the employer can certainly take into account the job profile for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the charges levelled against the candidate and whether the acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of composition.

The reliance placed by Mr. Dave, learned Amicus Curiae on the decision of this Court in Mohammed Imran is not quite correct and said decision cannot be of any assistance to the respondent. In para 5 of said decision, this Court had found that the only allegation against the appellant therein was that he was travelling in an autorickshaw which was following the autorickshaw in which the prime accused, who was charged under Section 376 IPC, was travelling with the prosecutrix in question and that all the accused were acquitted as the prosecutrix did not support the allegation. The decision in Mohammed Imran thus turned on individual facts and cannot in any way be said to have departed from the line of decisions rendered by this Court in Mehar Singh Parvez Khan and Pradeep Kumar.

We must observe at this stage that there is nothing on record to suggest that the decision taken by the authorities concerned in rejecting the candidature of the respondent was in any way actuated by mala fides or suffered on any other count. The decision on the question of suitability of the respondent, in our considered view, was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the decisions rendered by the Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench and dismiss Writ Petition No.9412 of 2013 preferred by the respondent. No costs."

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the committee constituted by the respondents found that there was a criminal case registered against the petitioner in which he was acquitted on the basis on benefit of doubt therefore, the respondents have taken a conscious decision not to appoint the petitioner on the post in question; secondly, it was within the domain of the respondents to consider the antecedents of the candidate and they could not be compelled to appoint such candidate; thirdly, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of M.P. (supra), I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner.

Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.