Case at a Glance
A candidate selected for a Grade-IV post in the Rajasthan Education Department was not allowed to join because a police verification report showed a pending FIR, lodged by his wife after he had taken the written exam, under BNS provisions on cruelty and related offences. The Rajasthan High Court held that an FIR arising from matrimonial discord, without independent assessment of the allegations and their bearing on the post, cannot by itself justify denial of appointment. It ordered his appointment, subject to the outcome of the criminal case and an undertaking to claim no equity if convicted.
The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board advertised Grade-IV Employee posts on 12 December 2024. The petitioner applied on 18 April 2025 and took the written exam on 19 September 2025. On 20 November 2025 an FIR was registered against him and his family members at his wife’s instance under Sections 85, 115(2) and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; the case is pending.
He qualified, completed document verification in February 2026 and was allotted a post in District Churu in July–August 2026, but was not permitted to join because of the pending FIR shown in the police verification report of 5 August 2026. The State relied on Anil Bhardwaj v. State of Madhya Pradesh and on a condition in the advertisement requiring eligibility to be determined under a Personnel Department circular of 4 December 2019.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a selected candidate be denied appointment solely because a criminal case arising from matrimonial discord is pending against him?
No Automatic Rejection for a Pending Case
The Court followed its earlier ruling in Neeraj Kanwar that FIRs arising out of matrimonial discord, involving offences without moral turpitude, cannot by themselves justify denying appointment. It distinguished Anil Bhardwaj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which involved Sections 498A and 406 IPC bearing directly on moral and financial integrity. The condition in the advertisement, it held, does not mandate automatic rejection but calls for a case-by-case determination as required by Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 07 SC CK 0097.
The record showed no independent assessment of the allegations, the petitioner’s role, or their bearing on the duties of a Grade-IV employee. The Court also observed that criminal cases arising from matrimonial disputes are sometimes used as a pressure tactic. Denial of appointment solely because the case was pending was therefore held “arbitrary and unsustainable.”
What the Court Actually Held
- Pendency of an FIR arising from matrimonial discord is not, by itself, a ground to deny appointment.
- The employer must independently assess the nature of the allegations and their relevance to the post, as required by Avtar Singh v. Union of India.
- The recruitment condition and the 2019 circular do not mandate automatic rejection.
- The respondents were directed to appoint the petitioner as a Grade-IV Employee by merit and category, subject to the outcome of the FIR and an undertaking to claim no equity if convicted, with consequential benefits if acquitted or discharged.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Many job seekers face matrimonial cases; this ruling prevents automatic disqualification on that basis alone.
- It requires recruiting authorities to record reasons on the nature of the allegations and the post.
- It balances the employer’s interest by making the appointment subject to the criminal case.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Candidates
- Disclose pending cases honestly; the petitioner’s non-concealment helped his case.
- If denied joining because of an FIR, ask for an assessment of its nature and relevance to the post.
- Expect any appointment to be subject to the outcome of the case.
For Counsel
- Rely on Avtar Singh v. Union of India for a case-by-case approach.
- Distinguish cases involving offences of moral turpitude or financial dishonesty.
- Point out the absence of independent assessment in the rejection decision.
Key Takeaways
- A pending matrimonial FIR cannot alone bar a government job.
- Employers must assess allegations case by case.
- Appointment was ordered subject to the result of the FIR.
- Acquittal or discharge will bring consequential benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a government job be denied because of a pending FIR?
Not automatically. The Rajasthan High Court held that the employer must assess the nature of the allegations and their bearing on the post; a matrimonial FIR alone was not enough.
What did the Court direct?
Appointment as Grade-IV Employee, subject to the outcome of the FIR and an undertaking by the petitioner that he will claim no special equity if convicted.
How is Anil Bhardwaj v. State of Madhya Pradesh different?
It involved offences bearing directly on moral and financial integrity, unlike the matrimonial allegations in this case.
Conclusion
The judgment stops a pending matrimonial case from automatically ending a candidate’s selection, while keeping the appointment tied to the outcome of the criminal case.
Practical takeaway: Where joining is refused only because of a pending FIR, challenge the absence of an individual assessment under Avtar Singh v. Union of India.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com