Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vijay Pal Yadav vs Jaipur City Transport And Anr on 2 February, 2017
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18178/2013
Vijay Pal Yadav S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Yadav, aged about 30 years, R/o
Village Udaon Ka Bass, P.O. Ratanpura, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar
(Raj.)
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur City Transport Services Ltd. Jaipur through its Managing
Director, IInd Floor, Old Women Hostel, Behind Nehru Place, Lal Kothi,
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Officer on Special Duty Cum Member Secretary, Service Selection
Board, Jaipur City Transport Services Ltd., IInd Floor, Old Women
Hostel, Behind Nehru Place, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)
...Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhil Simlote, Ms. Prakash Yadav, Mr. Bhupendera Sharma.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Santosh Jaiman.
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Order 02/02/2017 REPORTABLE Is the obligation to do justice confined only to the Courts? It cannot and apparently is not and extends to all public functionarily. In the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana [(1985)4 SCC 417] the Apex Court observed that justice is not the function of the courts alone, it is also the duty of other state functionaries in every organ of the State who are (2 of 8) [CW-18178/2013] expected to take decision on matters before them. However, as quite apparent from the facts of the case before this court, some officers of the welfare state, as the country avowedly is, are sadly innocent of their duty to be just in the discharge of their duties and oblivious to the observations of the Apex Court which have been adverted to in the fond hope of better dissemination of justice. They continue to be prone to mechanically dealing with matters which come up before them--pushing files only particlualry when the matter before them relates to the less fortunate men and women without access to the levers of power.
The petitioner was selected as a driver of the Jaipur City Transport Services Limited (hereinafter 'JCTSL') after due process as reflected in the letter dated 04.09.2013. He has however been denied appointment on the ground that prior to his selection he was prosecuted for offences under Section 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134/187 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1988') in which on the matter coming up before the Magistrate's Court he admitted to his guilt for the offences charged in the spirit of Lok Adalat (as recorded by the trial judge) and fined Rs.2000/-.
It is not the case of the respondent-JCTSL that the petitioner was at any stage prior to his selection required to disclose previous involvement in a criminal case. Admittedly only when the petitioner was informed of his selection under the JCTSL's letter dated 04.09.2013 and called upon to submit details of any pending criminal case, if any, against him and also furnish a certificate of good character from the jurisdictional police station, (3 of 8) [CW-18178/2013] he approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police Behror, Alwar (DSP) for the requisite certificate of good character. It was so issued on 13.09.2013 but it was also recorded therein that the petitioner had earlier suffered a trial in a criminal case no.519/2009 for offences under Section 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134/187 of the Act of 1988 in which he was visited a fine of Rs.2000/-. On the submission of the aforesaid certificate by the petitioner to JCTSL in compliance with its letter dated 04.09.2013, he has apparently been found unfit for appointment on the post of driver despite his selection and not appointed. Hence this petition.
Mr. Akhil Simlote counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no legal prohibition against the appointment of a person as a driver with the respondent-JCTSL for reason of his prior conviction for a minor offence of rash and negligent driving in which he came to be found guilty only on his admission in the spirit of Lok Adalat as recorded by the trial judge and paid a fine of Rs.2000/- thereon. Mr. Akhil Simlote submitted that the instant case is also not one of suppression of fact of criminal prosecution as it was only for the first time after his selection vide JCTSL's letter dated 04.09.2013 that he was required to declare whether there was any pending criminal case against him. A certificate of good character by the jurisdictional police station was also required. Counsel submitted that the aforesaid the conditions were satisfied by the petitioner inasmuch as on 04.09.2013 there was admittedly no pending criminal case against him in view of the evident fact that vide order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the (4 of 8) [CW-18178/2013] Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bansur, Alwar the petitioner albeit convicted on his admission was let off with a fine of Rs.2000/-. Mr. Akhil Simlote then submitted that the certificate dated 13.09.2013 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Behror Alwar in fact records the factum of the petitioner having a good moral character. That should have sufficed and the petitioner having fulfilled the requirements of the letter dated 04.09.2013 from JCTSL, should have been appointed on the post of driver. Yet his appointment has been arbitrarily withheld for the irrelevant reason of his earlier conviction on his own admission for rash and negligent driving. Mr. Simlote submitted that the right to livelihood through public employment obtained after due process definitely entails that non-appointment despite selection cannot follow except in situations where the selectee has suffered a criminal trial/prosecution for grievous offences involving moral turpitude or had suppressed information of involvement in a criminal case despite an obligation to disclose set out in the selection process. It was submitted that the petitioner's trial and conviction for minor traffic offences all punishable in the alternative by fines of small sums, does not entail any conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude on his part. And no suppression is alleged against the petitioner. Mr. Akhil Simlote finally submitted that consequently the non-appointment of the petitioner despite his selection to the post of driver is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without the application of mind. This Court in the facts of the case should issue a mandamus directing that the petitioner duly selected as driver by JCTSL be so appointed.
(5 of 8) [CW-18178/2013] Mr. Santosh Jaiman counsel for the respondent-JCTSL submitted that though the petitioner was indeed selected as a driver with the respondent-JCTSL after due process, on the fact of his previous conviction in a case of rash and negligent driving having come to the notice of JCTSL he was rightly not appointed. Consequently nothing arbitrary can be attributed to the non- appointment of the petitioner.
Heard. Considered.
The right to livelihood falls within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be denied to a selectee without a good cause. In the instant case it is not disputed that the petitioner was selected on the post of driver after due process. It is also an admitted fact that there is no legal/statutory or even executive ordained prohibition for non-appointment of a duly selected person on the post of driver with the JCTSL on the basis of his previous conviction for minor offences related to rash and negligent driving more so where the conviction was based on an admission in the spirit of Lok Adalat and only a fine of Rs.2000/- imposed. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was not at all ever required prior to JCTSL's letter dated 04.09.2013 or thereafter to disclose the factum of his being involved in a criminal case at any point of time prior to his selection. Even JCTSL's letter dated 04.09.2013 only required information not as to his previous conviction but as to whether he was at the relevant time facing criminal prosecution and he was required to submit a certificate of good moral character from the jurisdictional police station. Admittedly the petitioner was not facing any criminal prosecution (6 of 8) [CW-18178/2013] or trial on 04.09.2013. He had been fined and the trial for rash and negligent driving had been concluded on 17.01.2012. The Superintendent of Police, Behror, Alwar in his certificate dated 13.09.2013 also stated that the petitioner was a person of good moral character although on a mechanical flourish stated that he had suffered a trial and fine for the offence of rash and negligent driving.
In the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the information with regard to the petitioner's previous conviction for the offence of rash and negligent driving can not be constituted as a ground for his non-appointment to the post of driver to which he had been selected after due process. The non- issuing of the letter of appointment to the petitioner despite his selection is thus palpably arbitrary. There is no legal foundation to support JCTSL's action/inaction. No good and sufficient cause obtains to deny the petitioner his livelihood which he seeks to obtain through his regular appointment with the respondent- JCTSL. The issue of petty cases unjustly bedeviling the lives of young citizens throughout their lives was noticed by the Apex Court in the case of Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [(1996)4 SCC 17]. Albeit that was a case in a different context in which the appellant before the Apex Court was tried summarily under Section 264 Criminal Procedure Code 1973 for an offence under Section 294 IPC, and the Apex Court allowed the petitioner's appeal noting that convictions cannot be casually arrived at, of importance is the Court's observations in Para 14 which are very germane to the situation which present itself in the (7 of 8) [CW-18178/2013] instant case. It was observed as under:-
14. Before concluding this judgment we hereby draw attention of the Parliament to step in and perceive the large many cases which per law and public policy are tried summarily, involving thousands and thousands of people throughout the country appearing before summary courts and paying small amounts of fine, more often than not, as a measure of plea-bargaining. Foremost among them being traffic, municipal and other petty offences under the Indian Penal Code, mostly committed by the young and/or the inexperienced. The cruel result of a conviction of that kind and a fine of payment of a paltry sum on plea-bargaining is the end of the career, future or present, as the case may be, of that young and/or inexperienced person, putting a blast to his life and his dreams. Life is too precious to be staked over a petty incident like this. Immediate remedial measures are therefore necessary in raising the toleration limits with regard to petty offences especially when tried summarily. Provision need be made that punishment of fine upto a certain limit, say upto Rs. 2000 or so, on a summary/ordinary conviction shall not be treated as conviction at all for any purpose and all the more for entry into and retention in government service. This can brook no delay, whatsoever.
Nothing in compliance with the observation of the Apex Court recorded above in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra) appears to have been done. However the concerns and the intent of the Apex Court are more relevant today in the exponential levels of unemployment in the country. A (8 of 8) [CW-18178/2013] young citizen cannot be denied right to employment casually without good legal foundation and for irrelevant reasons as has been sought to have been done in the instant case. It cannot even remotely be argued that the conviction of the petitioner based on his own admission in the spirit of Lok Adalat as recorded by the trial court i.e Judicial Magistrate First Class Bansur, Alwar in his judgment dated 17.01.2012 for minor traffic offences tantamounts to a conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude. It is also not the respondent JCTSL's case that the petitioner was guilty of suppressing information of his prior conviction. In fact such information was never sought.
Consequently this petition is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner be allowed to join service as driver with JCTSL pursuant to his selection as conveyed by JCTSL to the petitioner in its letter dated 04.09.2013. This be done within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled to all benefits with reference to the date of the appointment of the person below him in the select list at the relevant time. It is however made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to the payment of actual salary for the period during which he has not been in actual employment and worked.
(ALOK SHARMA) J.
Karan