- (1.) A direction is claimed in this petition for writ for the respondents to consider candidature of the petitioner for appointment in clerical cadre of the respondent Bank, as a consequent to his selection in pursuant to the process taken place under the notice dated 12.7.2010.
(2.) IN brief, facts of the case are that under Clerical Recruitment Project 2010/11, the respondent Bank of India initiated process of selection for recruitment in clerical cadre against 2467 posts, out of which 47 posts were allotted for recruitment from the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner being eligible, submitted an application in pursuant to the notice dated 12.7.2010 and faced process of selection. By a letter dated 13.7.2011 the Deputy Regional Manager, Rajasthan Zone, Bank of India, informed the petitioner that he has been selected for appointment in clerical cadre, however, as per the police inquiry/character verification made through the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur a criminal case bearing No.39/2009 pertaining to the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 427, 147, 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code is pending against him at Police Station Mandore, thus, his candidature can be considered for appointment in clerical cadre only on submitting a favourable decision/compromise in the case aforesaid within a period of two months. It was also informed to the petitioner that in the event of failure to provide any favourable decision/compromise within the period prescribed, his claim for appointment shall be treated cancelled. The petitioner vide letter dated 25.7.2011 conveyed the respondent Bank that the criminal case pending against him is an outcome of some family dispute and pertaining to very minor offences, as such that is required to be ignored while considering his candidature for appointment in clerical cadre. On receiving no favourable decision, this petition for writ was filed. In reply, the stand of the respondent Bank is that in the notice dated 12.7.2010, while inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the clerical cadre, it was made clear that appointment and confirmation in the service of the Bank shall be subject to receiving satisfactory reference from respectable referees, police verification of antecedents, class/caste verification and other necessary compliance. It was also made clear that the candidate should not furnish any particulars/details/information that is incorrect or should make any false statements. The petitioner in quite definite terms declared that he was having no criminal antecedents and in case of verification if there is any adverse report from the concerned authorities, his appointment shall be liable to be terminated. The petitioner is admittedly facing a criminal trial for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 427, 147, 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code, therefore, he is having criminal antecedents and as such his candidature was rightly rejected. Heard counsel for the parties. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that mere pendency of a criminal case is not sufficient to establish that the petitioner is having criminal background or antecedents. It is asserted that the case pending against him is an outcome of family dispute among the brothers and that too for minor offences, as such that is required to be ignored while considering his candidature for appointment. To substantiate the facts the petitioner has also placed on record a copy of the first information report that clearly indicates that the first information report was filed by his uncle with whom some family dispute was already existing. A counter case was also filed by the petitioner's family against his uncle. The requirement under the notice dated 12.7.2010 was that the aspirant should not be of criminal antecedent. The criminal antecedent means that the person should be of a criminal nature and should be frequently involved in criminal activities. In the instant matter the criminal case pending against the petitioner is admittedly an outcome of family dispute and that too for very minor nature. Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing such an issue in Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar, reported in (2011)4 SCC 644, held as under:- "8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter."
(3.) THE instant one is the case akin to the facts considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar (supra). An effort is made by counsel for the respondents to convince the Court that the petitioner concealed the fact about pendency of the case, therefore, by conduct he is not entitled for appointment in clerical cadre. This kind of aspect too was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court as apparent from the relevant portion of the judgment quoted above. Beside the above, from perusal of the notice dated 12.7.2010 and the proforma prescribed to apply for recruitment, it nowhere reveals that any definite information with regard to pendency of criminal cases was demanded by the respondents. The only requirement was to mention that the aspirant is not of criminal antecedent. As already stated in preceding paras the petitioner merely on pendency of one criminal case for minor offence cannot be termed and treated as the person with criminal antecedent, as such the respondents wrongly rejected the petitioner's candidature from consideration for appointment in clerical cadre. The petition for writ hence is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment in clerical cadre of the respondent Bank against the vacancies pertaining to the State of Rajasthan ignoring pendency of criminal case concerned. Such consideration is required to be made within a period of two months from today and if the petitioner is otherwise found eligible to be recruited, appointment be accorded to him as per his merit. No order to costs. ;