Disciplined force, higher standards: Punjab and Haryana High Court upholds candidate’s rejection over criminal trial

“In our considered view, the offending rule makes a clear distinction and deals with a distinct exigency that has a direct bearing on the suitability of a candidate for public employment. When such public employment is in a disciplined force, it becomes all the more important,” the Punjab and Haryana High Court said in its March 24 order. 

The bench was hearing the plea of a candidate who challenged the appointment rule under the Punjab Police (Haryana Amendment) Rules, 2015. (AI-enhanced image)

‘Rule important in disciplined force’

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that the employer retains the right to consider the antecedents of a candidate for employment.
• The employer cannot be compelled to appoint a candidate, notwithstanding his disclosure of involvement in a criminal case
• The high court found that the said rule makes a clear distinction and deals with a distinct exigency that has a direct bearing on the suitability of a candidate for public employment.
• It is undisputed that the principles governing electoral laws have no direct application in service jurisprudence. 
• The right of the employer to determine the suitability of a candidate for employment is distinct in nature and subserves a purpose different from the continuance of an employee in service once he is appointed. 
• The argument that ineligibility for continuance in employment should be uniform is misplaced, since the consideration for adjudging suitability is a distinct aspect altogether. 
• At this stage, the employer only examines whether a person is suitable for employment or not.
• However, once an appointment is offered, the Punjab and Haryana High Court said it is a vested right of continuance in terms of the statutory rules comes into existence. 

• Therefore, the curtailment of such a right would depend upon the specific provisions contained in the applicable service rules. 
• These two distinct contingencies cannot be treated at par, nor can the principle applicable in the later exigency be applied at the earlier stage of adjudging suitability.
• The said rule is reasonable, and neither curtails the right of an employer to examine the suitability of a candidate nor imposes an unreasonable restriction on the right of a person to claim appointment. 
• The challenge to the said rule, therefore, fails, and the plea of the petitioner is accordingly dismissed. 

‘Appointment, ineligible’ 

• The petitioner allegedly applied for appointment to the post of constable in Haryana Police and was selected on October 17, 2024. 
• However, by order of November 2024, the petitioner’s candidature was cancelled, relying upon the relevant rule. 
• The petitioner was allegedly charged with an offence relating to outraging the modesty of a woman, under the various sections of the Indian Penal Code.
• Since the charges had been framed and the petitioner was facing trial, the appointing authority exercised its right to adjudge the suitability of the employee for appointment and consequently held him ineligible for appointment to the post of constable. 

‘No straight-jacket formula’

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Shreenath A Khemka argued that the said rule cannot be cast in a straight-jacket formula such that the discretion of the employer gets obliterated. 
• On the contrary, additional advocate general Rajesh Gaur opposed the submissions on the ground that the discretion of the employer to determine suitability for employment is not in any manner curtailed. 
• He emphasised that the provisions provide appropriate guidelines for the exercise of such discretion.