Authorities may deny daily-wage government engagement based on criminal antecedents, including pending FIRs.

The appellant was engaged on a daily-wage/Collector-rate basis as a Fire Safety and Computer Operator at Government Hospital, Ambikapur, from September 2025.

The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Hospital Superintendent declined to issue him a character-verification certificate on the ground that two FIRs had been registered against him. Consequently, his engagement was discontinued and he was not given further work.

One FIR related to an offence under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, in which the appellant was treated as a juvenile and censured. The second FIR remained pending trial.

The appellant challenged the communication dated 26 May 2026 in WPS No. 5488 of 2026. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 21 July 2026, holding that character verification is an administrative exercise concerning suitability and that the appellant had no vested or statutory right to continue as a daily wager.

The State additionally relied on the undertaking furnished by the appellant at the time of engagement, under which he had declared that no criminal case had been decided or was pending against him, with incorrect disclosure liable to result in discontinuance of engagement.

Whether the respondents were justified in refusing to issue a character-verification certificate and discontinuing the appellant’s daily-wage engagement on account of two registered FIRs, including one resulting in conviction/censure and another pending trial?

Whether the appellant had a legal or enforceable right to continue as a daily-wage employee despite the existence of criminal antecedents and the terms of his undertaking?

Character verification is an administrative exercise undertaken to assess a person’s suitability for engagement in Government service, and the competent authority may consider relevant criminal antecedents.

A daily-wage employee has no vested or statutory right to continue in engagement.

The existence of criminal antecedents may justify refusal of engagement, particularly in a hospital or Government institution, even where one matter resulted in only censure due to juvenile status and another remains pending trial.

The terms of an undertaking furnished at the time of engagement may also be enforced where the employee has declared that no criminal case is pending or decided against him.

The Court noted that the appellant had two criminal cases recorded against him. In the first, although he was a juvenile and received only censure, he had nevertheless been found responsible for the offence; the second case was still under trial.

Since character verification concerns suitability rather than merely final conviction, the authorities were entitled to consider these antecedents while deciding whether the appellant should continue in a Government hospital.

The Court further accepted that the appellant had no vested right to continuation as a daily wager and that the undertaking submitted at the time of engagement provided an additional basis for discontinuance.

Accordingly, the refusal to issue the certificate and the resulting discontinuance were not found arbitrary or illegal.

It found no infirmity in the reasoned order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ appeal as devoid of merit.