In landmark hearing, husband gets government job despite wife filing domestic violence case

A man hailing from Rajasthan won a landmark court battle and secured a state government job in spite of his wife filing a domestic violence case against him.

The man secured a state government job with merit rank 68 after passing the exam nearly 10 years ago. However, he did not receive the appointment letter because his wife has filed a 498A case against him 2 years prior.

In 2013 when there was no active criminal case against him, the man passed the merit-based exam. The state government, however delayed his recruitment process by almost 9 years. It was only in 2022 the government issued him a call letter which was subject to verification.

During the background verification process in 2022, he disclosed that his wife filed 498A case against him 2 years ago and is currently on trial at the High Court. After learning about the 498A case, his candidature was denied.

The Economic Times in a report analysed how the man used legal provisions in his fight against the government to secure the job.

The government denied the man the job on grounds that his character is unfit for a government job owing to multiple criminal cases against him. Sections 498A, 406, 323 and 494 were filed in a charge sheet. A 2019 circular was also cited by the government defending its decision, which became the primary point of argument during the court proceedings against the husband.

Titled "Guidelines for appointing authorities regarding character verification for Government Jobs', the circular was issued on December 4, 2019. The man challenging this decision raised the following questions in court: Why can’t he get a government job when his wife of 9 years of marriage filed a 498A case, this case is still pending trial, and nothing was proved as of that date. The last question was, the government did not properly review his case and blindly cited the circular as reason for denial of government job despite him being on the merit list and the mere breakdown of marriage does not mean the husband is a criminal.

A co-ordinate bench was formed to investigate and reconsider the case. However, a speaking order was issued on March 8, 2024 denying him the government job. The man went on to file a petition against this order in the Rajasthan High Court.

According to the report, Justice Arun Monga after reading the order said, "Prima facie, having seen the impugned order dated March 8, 2024, which is being termed as a speaking order, it is anything but speaking. It (this order by the co-ordinate bench) does not clarify as to how the nature of pending criminal trial in any manner impeached the duties to be performed by the petitioner (husband) and/or how does it amount to a moral turpitude without there being any finding of facts and or criminal culpability.”

“At best, the petitioner (husband) is merely under trial and his fate is yet to be governed depending on the outcome of the trial….Be that as it may, mere break down of a marriage cannot be treated as if the husband is the sole erring party just because his wife has chosen to press criminal charges against him, which are yet to be proved.”

The state government was directed by Rajasthan High Court Judge Arun Monga to establish an expert group and re-examine the husband's case. In a related ruling in Avtar Singh vs Union of India, the High Court also directed the government to take a precedent into account.

The man alleged that the government failed to constitute an expert committee to review the case and did not consider Avtar Singh's judgment. Quoting the 2019 circular his job was denied. He filed a writ petition in the High Court after receiving the committee's report on July 25, 2024.

When asked why the government did not form a committee for reviewing the case as per the direction of the court, to counter the man's claims, the government did not respond for four months. When the four month window to respond was over, the High Court stated that enough time was already given.

The case Mukesh Kumar vs State of Rajasthan & Ors where it was held that on account of pendency of criminal case, the petitioner cannot be denied appointment of government job, was cited by the lawyers representing the man.

Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution is violated if a husband with pending 498A case is denied government job.

After hearing the arguments, Justice Arun Monga of Rajasthan High Court said, “I am unable to convince myself with the insipidity of the argument adopted by the learned counsel for respondents (government) that since the charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, petitioner does not deserve to be appointed. Despite allegations under IPC Sections 498A, 406, 323, and 494, the petitioner is presumed innocent until proven guilty.”

As per the report, the High Court also said, “The circular dated 04.12.2019 and the impugned order unjustly bar his appointment based solely on pending criminal charges. The action of respondents infringes upon the petitioner’s rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, denying equal treatment and personal liberty without a fair trial. Moreover, failure to apply the Supreme Court's guidelines in Avtar Singh (Supra) regarding pending criminal cases indicates nothing else but flawed decision-making on the part of the respondent."

The High Court went on to say, “By way of interim order dated 09.10.2015 one post was directed to be kept vacant for the petitioner in the selection process. The respondents are directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner, upon his approaching them with web print of instant order, within a period of 30 days thereof, which shall be subject to the final outcome of the pending criminal trial. The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that in case he is convicted in the criminal trial, he shall not claim any equity on the basis of the instant order.”

“The impugned order (08.03.2024) and committee report (01.03.2024) rejecting the petitioner’s candidature for the post are thus arbitrary, unreasonable, and lack proper consideration, necessitating judicial intervention herein to quash the same. It is accordingly so ordered…..In any case, pending criminal trial, unless of course proven guilty by way of conviction, cannot bar appointments,” the High Court added.