# Rakesh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 311
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-23
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 18090 of 2020
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakesh-kumar-verma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54357
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

3 All. Rakesh Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
311
(2026) 3 ILRA 311
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Writ A No. 18090 of 2020

Rakesh Kumar Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Validity of denial of appointment to a selected candidate on the sole ground of his implication as a coaccused in criminal case arising out of matrimonial dispute, particularly when the same was disclosed in
Application Form.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Appointment - Post of Junior Assistant - Petitioner was selected, but was
denied appointment, as he was not found suitable for government office on the sole ground that
he was implicated as a co-accused in FIR lodged under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and
Section 3/4 D. P. Act - Petitioner had duly disclosed the pendency of criminal case - Validity of
denial of appointment was challenged
Held : A perusal of the FIR indicates that only general and sweeping allegations have been made regarding
demand of dowry against all the family members, without assigning any specific role to the petitioner. The
offences alleged are punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, which, though cognizable, do not, in the facts of the present case, appear to be of such
gravity so as to render the petitioner unsuitable for public employment. The allegations, on the face of record,
appear to be trivial in nature and arise out of a domestic dispute, having no bearing on the discharge of duties
attached to the post in question - Youthful indiscretions and minor offences ought not to result in branding a
person as a criminal for life, and that the approach should be reformative rather than punitive - Pendency of
the criminal case, based on general allegations arising out of a matrimonial dispute, does not constitute a
valid ground to deny appointment to the petitioner. [Para 12, 13 and 14] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 - referred to.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code - Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC; Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 3 and 4.

List of Keywords
Appointment, Criminal case, Matrimonial dispute, Suitable for government office, Medically fit, Recruitment,
Criminal case of trivial nature, Discretion, General and sweeping allegations, Demand of dowry, Pubic
employment, Domestic dispute, Branding a person as a criminal for life, Reformative, Punitive, Jean Valjean,
Minor infractions, Lifelong adverse consequences.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 06.07.2020 passed by the respondent denying appointment to the petitioner.
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Manish Chaudhary, Chandra Prakash Pal, Deepika Srivastava, Mamta Singh,
Prashant Jaiswal, Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advs. for the Respondents : Standing Counsel

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of
certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 06.07.2020, whereby the petitioner has been
denied appointment to the post of Junior Assistant by respondent No. 2 on the ground that a report
was received by the District Collector, Lakhimpur Kheri, vide letter dated 15.03.2019, stating that a
criminal case, being Case No. 10659 of 2010 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section
3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Lakhimpur Kheri, is pending
against the petitioner.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that 3,258 vacancies for the post of
Junior Assistant and 18 vacancies for the post of Store Keeper were advertised by the U.P.
Subordinate Services Selection Commission. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Assistant,
was declared successful, and was thereafter allotted the Department of Cane and Sugar
Commissioner, U.P. through the online Department Allotment System. A revised allotment letter
issued by the Commission is on record as Annexure No. 4.

4. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2, vide letter dated 12.02.2019, referred the
petitioner to the Chief Medical Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri, for medical examination, and the
petitioner was found medically fit, as per report dated 18.02.2019.

5. It is submitted that prior to the advertisement, a matrimonial dispute arose between the
petitioner's elder brother, Chandra Pal, and his wife, Kamini, in relation to which an FIR being
Case Crime No. 5467 of 2007 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged, wherein the petitioner was implicated as a co-accused. It is
submitted that, in compliance with Clauses 15(9) and 15(14) of Advertisement No. 04/2016, the
petitioner had duly disclosed pendency of the said criminal case.

6. After allotment, the petitioner submitted a representation before respondent No. 2, which
was decided on 20.05.2020 (Annexure No. 1), whereby the petitioner was denied appointment
solely on the ground of pendency of the aforesaid criminal case, in which the petitioner is only a
co-accused and his elder brother is the main accused.

7. Learned Standing Counsel opposed the petition and submitted that due to the pendency of
the criminal case, the petitioner was not found suitable for government service, and his candidature
was rightly rejected in view of his criminal antecedents as revealed in verification.

8. Perused the record.
3 All. Rakesh Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
313

9. A perusal of the impugned order (Annexure No. 1) shows that, except for the pendency of
the aforesaid criminal case, which was duly disclosed by the petitioner in terms of Clauses 15(9)
and 15(14) of Advertisement No. 04/2016, no adverse material has been found against the
petitioner. The petitioner has also been found medically fit. The impugned order, therefore, appears
to have been passed solely on account of the pendency of the said criminal case.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, reported in (2016) 8 SCC
471, while considering the issue of pending criminal cases at the stage of recruitment, laid down
guidelines in paragraph 38, which is as under:-

"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as
possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or
arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true
and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for
giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any,
while giving such information.

38.3.
The
employer
shall
take
into
consideration
the
government
orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case
where
conviction
or
acquittal
had
already
been
recorded
before
filling
of
the
application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the
following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as
shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an
incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of
fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature,
employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or
offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or
benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available
as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded
criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to
appoint the candidate.

38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form
regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the
case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.

38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases
such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate
order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom
multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the
form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after
considering the seriousness of the crime.

38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would
be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of
suppression or submitting false information in verification form.

38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has
to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned
has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer
the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness.
However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false
information as to a fact which was not even asked for.

38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of
the fact must be attributable to him."

11. In paragraph 38.6, it has been held that where a candidate has truthfully disclosed the
pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, the employer, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, may, in its discretion, appoint the candidate subject to the outcome of such case.

12. In the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioner has truthfully disclosed the
pendency of the criminal case in terms of the relevant clauses of the advertisement. It is also
evident that the present case arises out of a solitary incident wherein the FIR has been lodged
primarily against the petitioner's elder brother, who is the main accused, and the petitioner, along
with other family members, has been implicated as a co-accused. A perusal of the FIR indicates
that only general and sweeping allegations have been made regarding demand of dowry against all
the family members, without assigning any specific role to the petitioner. The offences alleged are
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
which, though cognizable, do not, in the facts of the present case, appear to be of such gravity so as
to render the petitioner unsuitable for public employment. The allegations, on the face of record,
appear to be trivial in nature and arise out of a domestic dispute, having no bearing on the discharge
of duties attached to the post in question.

13. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (supra),
while referring to Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, has observed in paragraphs 8 and
9 that youthful indiscretions and minor offences ought not to result in branding a person as a
criminal for life, and that the approach should be reformative rather than punitive. The Court
illustrated this principle by referring to the character "Jean Valjean" from Victor Hugo's novel Les
Misrables, emphasizing that minor infractions, particularly those arising from personal or family
circumstances, deserve to be condoned rather than resulting in lifelong adverse consequences.

14. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the
pendency of the criminal case, based on general allegations arising out of a matrimonial dispute,
does not constitute a valid ground to deny appointment to the petitioner.
3 All. Magghu Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
315

15. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the
impugned order dated 06.07.2020 (Annexure No. 1) is hereby quashed.

16. Respondent No. 2 is directed to issue the appointment letter to the petitioner forthwith.
However, such appointment shall be subject to the outcome of the criminal trial/appeal, if any.

17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 315
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ C No. 1779 of 2026

Magghu Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to applicability of the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 for protection of life and property of a senior citizen in a dispute relating to rival claims
regarding title and possession of immovable property between persons who are not related to each other.
(Paras 11 to 19)

Headnotes
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Ss. 4 and 5 - Filing of an
application by an aggrieved person contemplated only for claiming maintenance from children or
relatives - No relation existing between petitioner and opposite party Nos.5 and 6 - Property
dispute arising only because parties claim to have purchased separate portions of same plot -
Provisions of the Act held inapplicable. (Paras 11,12)
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - S. 8 - Maintenance Tribunal
to follow summary procedure - Rival claims to ownership and possession of immovable
properties cannot be decided in a summary manner - Such disputes require filing of pleadings,
framing issues, adducing evidence, cross-examining witnesses and detailed judgment -
Authorities under the Act not meant to decide rival claims regarding ownership and possession
of immovable properties. (Para 13)
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - S. 22 - State Government
may confer powers and impose duties on District Magistrate to ensure provisions of the Act are
properly carried out - Scope of powers does not include adjudication of disputes relating to title
and possession of immovable properties - Protection of property of senior citizens does not
extend to deciding rival claims regarding title of immovable property. (Paras 15,16,17)
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - S. 27 - Bar of jurisdiction
confined to matters to which provisions of the Act apply - Object of the Act not to authorize
authorities under the Act to adjudicate disputes relating to title and possession of immovable
properties - Jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Courts to decide disputes relating to rival claims of
possession and title not barred. (Para 18)