The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State government to confirm a woman’s appointment to the Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS), which was previously withheld on the grounds of a pending criminal case filed by her now-deceased husband.

Justice Arun Monga, who delivered the judgment, noted that the FIR against petitioner Neeraj Kanwar stemmed from a matrimonial dispute and that she had truthfully disclosed its details in the required information form during the recruitment process.

The Court found that the recruitment authorities had never objected to her eligibility or suitability at any stage prior to the final selection.

Rejecting the State’s justification that the job advertisement disqualified candidates facing criminal trials, the Court pointed out that no statutory rule backed such automatic ineligibility.

“The respondents have not demonstrated any provision under the applicable recruitment rules that mandates automatic disqualification solely on the basis of a pending criminal trial,” the Court observed.

Justice Monga emphasized that it is a settled legal principle that if a candidate has truthfully disclosed the pendency of a criminal case—particularly one of a trivial nature—then the employer must exercise discretion and make an objective assessment of the candidate’s suitability.

The Court held that the condition in the recruitment advertisement, which disqualified candidates facing trial, was legally unsustainable. “The stipulation under Condition No. 15 of the advertisement dated 20.07.2021—that candidates under trial would be ineligible—was incorrectly inserted and cannot be enforced,” the judge ruled.

Kanwar had cleared the Rajasthan State Administrative and Subordinate Services Examination, for which applications were invited in 2021. While other successful candidates received appointment letters in 2024, Kanwar was denied the same due to the pending FIR.

Following this, she approached the High Court and was granted provisional appointment through an interim order in July 2024. Importantly, her husband—who had filed the FIR in 2020—had passed away before she even applied for the post.

In the final judgment dated March 27, Justice Monga evaluated whether the mere pendency of the case could justify denying her a government job. “The answer is in the negative,” he concluded.

The Court referred to Supreme Court rulings which direct appointing authorities to consider the nature of the offence, its relevance to the job, and whether it involves moral turpitude, rather than relying mechanically on the existence of a criminal case.

Upon reviewing the FIR, the Court found that the charges against Kanwar did not involve moral turpitude, nor did her alleged role indicate unfitness for public service.

Furthermore, the Court held that the State had not carried out an objective assessment of her suitability. “It is neither pleaded nor shown that the competent authority considered the nature of the allegations, the duties of the post, or other relevant factors before declaring the petitioner unsuitable,” the judgment stated.

As a result, the Court concluded that the denial of appointment was arbitrary and unjustified. It ordered the State to finalize Kanwar’s appointment based on her merit and category, subject to the outcome of the criminal case.

“The respondents are directed to make the petitioner’s provisional appointment absolute, in accordance with her merit and category, subject to the outcome of the pending trial,” the Court directed. Kanwar was also required to submit an affidavit stating that she would not claim any special equity in case of her conviction.

Legal Representation:
Petitioner Neeraj Kanwar was represented by Senior Advocate Anand Purohit, along with advocates Mayank Roy, Sameer Pareek, and Vishal Singhal.
The State was represented by Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General Rajesh Panwar, with advocate Meenal Singhvi.