Judgment · High Court

In response to the notice issued on 19-06-2003 calling for applications from Indian Nationals and Organizations in India for being appointed as Rail Travel Service Agents at Guntur, petitioner also submitted his application. Since the petitioner’s name was not considered on the basis that he is involved in a criminal case, this writ petition is filed questioning the selection of Service Agents at Guntur.

On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, first respondent-Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Guntur, filed his counter affidavit inter alia contending that since a criminal case is pending against the petitioner before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, in connection with the Crime No.2 of 2002 under Section 143 of the Railways Act 1989, the screening committee did not consider his application and that the screening committee considered four applications for Lakshmipuram area and appointed the third respondent as service agent after taking secured deposit and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the application contains a question “whether any Proprietor/Partner/Director has ever been convicted? If so, give the details thereof” and since the rules/conditions framed for appointment of all agents lay down that a person who is- (a) in possession of latest income tax clearance certificate, (b) having office and premises properly maintained with adequate convenience and amenities in the city so as to accommodate the visit of sufficient number of customers, and (c) not convicted in a criminal case involving moral turpitude; may apply for issue of a Licence under Rule 4 to act as an Agent, and since petitioner, admittedly, is not convicted in any case, rejection of application of the petitioner merely on the ground that a criminal case is pending against him is improper.

The contention of the learned standing counsel for Railways, appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, is that since petitioner is involved in a criminal case, his application was not considered and in any event this petition became infructuous since third respondent was selected and appointed and contends that petitioner’s name would be considered when a fresh notification is issued, which is in the offing.

I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since there is neither a rule nor a column in the application relating to the pendency of criminal cases against an applicant being a disqualification, non-consideration of the application of the petitioner, on the ground of pendency of a criminal case, is improper. As per the rule only a person convicted in respect of an offence involving moral turpitude is ineligible. It is well known that till trial is completed nobody can say whether the accused would be convicted or not. So mere pendency of a criminal case does not amount to ‘conviction’. If respondents 1 and 2 did not intend to consider even the person against whom a criminal case is pending, the rule and application should be amended suitably. In view thereof rejection of the application of the petitioner on the ground that a criminal case is pending against him, is improper and consequently the selection of the third respondent is also improper.