High Court
Legal Reasoning
7 905.WP-2728-2025.doc offence under Sections 494 and 498A of IPC are related to characterof human being. Offence under Sections 494 and 498A of IPC, ratherfocus on the act of bigamy (Section 494 and cruelty towards awoman by husband or his relatives). Meaning the criminal act isadjudged based upon the actions taken not necessarily theindividuals over all moral character. Considering the nature of theoffence registered against Respondent No.4, those are related to thematrimonial disputes. The relation between the complainant and theRespondent No.4 is also significant. The complainant and thepetitioner were residing in joint family. She had some dispute withher husband. Therefore, as informed by the Counsel for theRespondent, she left the home in 2008 and after around 6 to 7 years,she lodged the offences unnecessarily implicating Respondent No.4.At the cost of repetion, we reiterate that the offence registeredagainst respondent no.4 is to be adjudged on the basis of actiontaken and it has no concern with individual’s over all character.Hence, we are of the opinion that the offence under Sections 494 and498 of IPC are not directly related to the person’s character. Exceptthis crime, there was no material before Respondent No.3 to assistthe antecedents. In the absence of such material, allegations ofantecedent rendering her unsuitable for employment could not beaccorded. So far as the case law relied by the petitioner is concerned,we have already discussed the facts with the case. Those facts werealtogether different and directly connected with a person who wasappointed as Police Patil. 8 905.WP-2728-2025.doc 10.Learned Counsel for the petitioner is right in arguing that thelist of offences referred to Annexure A to Government Resolutiondated 26.08.2014 is illustrative. So while considering the issueinvolved in the case like this, the Court has to examine the facts andthe acts of the parties concerned to decide the character of the personwho has been or is to be appointed as Police Patil. We haveelaborately discussed the relevant Clause (e) of Section 3 of Order1968. Hence we do not reiterate the same. We are convinced thatmere registration of the crime under Sections 494 and 498 of IPCagainst Respondent No.4 does not disqualify her from theappointment as Police Patil and there is no bar of Clause (e) ofSection 3 of the Order 1968. We have also examined the impugnedjudgment and order of the learned MAT with the able assistance ofboth side Counsels. We find no error in the impugned judgment. Noillegality has been committed. There are no grounds to interfere withthe impugned judgment and order. Hence, we pass the followingorder :ORDER(i)Writ Petition stands dismissed.(ii)No order as to cost.[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] [ S. G. MEHARE, J.]NAJEEB..
Arguments
1 905.WP-2728-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 2728 OF 2025SUJATA RAMRAO SOMWANSHIVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Gaikwad Anil M.AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. S.R. Yadav LonikarAdvocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. Joslyn Anthony Menezes ... CORAM : S. G. MEHARE AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 7th MARCH 2025PER COURT :1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned AGP forthe State and learned Counsel for Respondent No.4.2.The Petitioner has impugned judgment and order of thelearned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai bench atAurangabad dated 05.02.2025 in Original Application No.679/2024.3.Respondent No.4 had applied for the post of Police Patil.The State has invited the applications for the post of Police Patil inSub-Division Nanded District. The applications were invited online.Respondent No.4 had also applied. After the scrutiny and otherqualifications, she was appointed as Police Patil for Village Shirshi 2 905.WP-2728-2025.doc (Kh), Tq. Kandhar, District Nanded. Before the appointment orderwas issued, the Petitioner raised the objection that Respondent No.4is ineligible, because she is an accused for the offences punishableunder Sections 494 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaintwas lodged with Respondent No.3 who was the appointing authority.He heard both sides and held Respondent No.4 disqualified to beappointed as Police Patil and appointed the Petitioner as Police Patil.Respondent No.4 approached the learned MaharashtraAdministrative Tribunal, challenging the order of Respondent No.3.After hearing both sides and considering relevant provisions of law,the learned MAT held that the allegations levelled againstRespondent No.4 does not fall under Clause e of Section 3 of theMaharashtra Village Police Patils (Recruitment, Pay, Allowances andother Conditions of Service) Order, 1968 (for short Order of 1968). Aspecific observation is also that Clause 3(e) does not reveal thatregistration of any criminal case could be disqualification to appearin the recruitment process for the post of Police Patil. Further theGovernment Resolution dated 26.08.2014 was also referred to whichgives the list of the offences, disqualifying the appointment for thepost of public servant for Grade-C and Grade-D post. The illustrativeoffences which are pending and concluded have been reproduced.Examining this Government Resolution with relevant sections of theActs mentioned therein, it has been observed that the offencepertaining to Section 494 is not referred to in the said Annexureattached to the Government Resolution dated 26.08.2014. ThePetitioner had also objection that Respondent No.4 has suppressed 3 905.WP-2728-2025.doc the pendency of the crime at the time of filing online application.4.The Respondent No.4 had a case that the offencesregistered against her are not directly connected with the badcharacter which is disqualification under clause (e) of the Order1968. She has also the case that in an advertisement there was noclause asking to submit information about the pendency of offenceand conviction in any crime. 5.Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. It is reiteratedthat Respondent No.4 has suppressed the material fact of pendencyof the offences which are related to character. The advertisementcondition no.4 is that applicant should be physically fit and hischaracter should be unblemished. He would also argue that sub-clause (e) of Section 3 of the Order 1968 is divided into two parts,firstly the candidates who have been adjudged after the summaryscrutiny by the competent authority found to be of bad character, orin the opinion of that authority, such antecedents as render himunsuitable for employment as Police Patil, are distinct grounds fordisqualification. He would also submit that the list of the offencesgiven in Annexure-A with Government Resolution dated 26.08.2014is illustrative, the Court cannot ignore the offences against thePetitioner. He would also argue that crime registered against suchaspirant should be tested pursuant to the duties to be discharged bysuch employee. Police Patil is an officer of the Village who has towork under the Supervisor and direction of the Executive Magistrate. 4 905.WP-2728-2025.doc He has to inform every crime happened at the earliest correctly andfairly. If the Petitioner is facing the offences under Sections 494 and498A, she may not discharge the duties appropriately. On this count,she was disqualified to be selected and appointed as Police Patil. Hehas vehemently argued that the act of ill-treating a woman by familymember and participating in illegal marriage has direct connectionwith character. Therefore registration of the crime againstRespondent No.4 for the said offences disqualify her. However,learned MAT has misinterpreted the law and recorded incorrectfinding in the Annexure-A to the Government Resolution dated26.08.2014. Section 494 is not referred to. Hence, it is not said to berelated to character. He placed the reliance on the case of Rajendra@ Raju Sheshrao Dalvi Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2015(4)Bom.C.R. 631. In this case, the Petitioner was disqualified for unfairdeclaration of small family. It was transpired that he had two wivesand two children from each. However, he did not disclose this factand submitted the false declaration that he has a sole wife and twochildren. Considering the provisions of law, this Court dismissed theWrit Petition by quashing the judgment and order of the learnedMAT. He would pray to allow the petition and quash and set aside theimpugned judgment and order of the learned MAT. 6.Per contra, learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent haspressed into service the Government Resolution dated 26.08.2014and argued that the nature of crimes has been given into two parts.In some of crimes even the pendency of the trial is a disqualification 5 905.WP-2728-2025.doc and in some crimes conviction is the disqualification. However, in thecase hand the trial against the petitioners are pending. Thepetitioner’s relation with the complainant is important. She was thesister-in-law of the complainant, in other words she was a wife of herbrother-in-law. They were residing jointly and the crime wasregistered long back in 2014 and 2017. He would also refer to clause(e) of Section 3 of the Order 1968 and argue that the competentauthority can decide the eligibility of the appointment on the basis ofthe summary inquiry about the character and the incident like.Therefore, this clause is not divided into two parts. Theadvertisement clauses were silent about furnishing data of convictionas well as the pendency of the trial. Hence, it could not be said thatthe petitioners have deliberately suppressed the fact and deserve tobe disqualified. The reasons of the MAT are in-consonance with thelaw and the directions issued by the Government. The SDO made theinquiry and mechanically passed the order holding that therespondent no.4 is not qualified only for the reason that the crime ispending against her. He would support the impugned judgment andorder and prayed to dismiss the petition.7.We have gone through the advertisement referred to by thelearned Counsel for the petitioner. The advertisement is completelysilent about the disclosure of the pendency of the crime or convictionfor any offence. Since this was not the condition for filing onlineapplication, it is difficult to accept the argument of learned Counselfor the petitioner that Respondent No.4 had deliberately suppressed 6 905.WP-2728-2025.doc the fact or pendency of the crime. So far as the Clause V of theadvertisement is concerned, it requires that the character of theapplicant should be unblemished. That means that the person shouldbe of a good character. Character is tested from human behavior.How the person behaves in the society and gets position in thesociety. Normally, a person who is not coming innocence anybodyand obey the law is said to be a man in good character. Theadvertisement also did not sought any character certificate at thetime of filing online application. Hence we do not find substance inthe argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner.8.The next crucial point is about Clause ‘e’ of Section 3 of Order1968. For ready reference, we reproduce it :“3. Eligibility for appointment : No person shall be eligible forbeing appointed as a Police Patil, who -(a)….(e)is adjudged by the competent authority after a summaryinquiry to be of bad character, or has, in the opinion of thatauthority, such antecedents as render him unsuitable foremployment as Police Patil.”9.For disqualifying the person to the appointment of Police Patil,he must have a good character or his antecedents must not beunsuitable for the employment as a Police Patil. Even the argument oflearned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gaikwad is accepted that theantecedent has no co-relation with the crime only, the test is of theconduct. Pursuant to this provision we have to test whether the