Allahabad HC.
Credit: PTI photo
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has ruled that merely because a person is a central government employee does not entitle him to appointment in state services.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by one Vishal Saraswat, Justice Salil Kumar Rai observed, "Two different public employers may have different views regarding the suitability of a candidate for appointment and one employer is not bound by the decision and discretion of the other employer."
"The state government cannot be saddled with the liability to mechanically and slavishly follow the decision taken by the central government or the Rajya Sabha secretariat," the high court said.
Saraswat had approached the high court after the Uttar Pradesh government refused to appoint him in the state services, citing the pendency of a dowry case against him.
The petitioner was granted provisional appointment as assistant legislative committee - protocol / executive officer in the Rajya Sabha secretariat on December 21, 2020. The said appointment was subject to the outcome of a criminal case of harassment for dowry against the petitioner and his family members in 2017.
Later, the petitioner cleared the combined state and upper subordinate service examination, 2019 conducted by the UP Public Service Commission and secured first position.
After disclosure of the pending criminal case, a report was sought by the UP government from the Rajya Sabha secretariat, whereby it was communicated that the petitioner had no disciplinary enquiry pending against him.
However, the additional chief secretary, appointment section-III, UP government, on February 28, 2024 rejected a representation of the petitioner based on charges in the criminal case.
The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the rejection as being violative of Article 14 (right to equality) and 16 (right to equality in the matter of public employment) of the Constitution.
It was argued that once the petitioner was an employee of the central government in Group-A service, the state government could not reject his appointment on grounds of the criminal case.
It was further argued that the criminal prosecution lodged against the entire family was false, a fact that was not considered by the additional chief secretary of the UP government.
The court, in its decision passed on November 22, noted that the petitioner had truthfully disclosed the pendency of the criminal case against him at the time of submitting the application form.
However, it relied upon a case of Avtar Singh vs Union of India (2016), in which it was held that pendency of criminal trial is a valid ground for rejection of candidature as eventual conviction might make the person unsuitable for the job.
Dismissing the petition, the court observed that merely being a part of the Rajya Sabha secretariat did not make him eligible for appointment in the state government.