Non-disclosure of pending criminal cases for trivial offences does not disqualify a candidate from public employment.

The Respondent (original Petitioner) was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Science-CBZ) by a private aided institution on 24.12.2022 following a public advertisement.

When the management submitted a proposal for approval of her appointment and admission to salary grant, the Deputy Director of Public Instructions (DDPI) issued an endorsement on 15.06.2023 rejecting the proposal.

The rejection was based on a pending criminal case (C.C. No. 1895/2021) for trivial IPC offences (Sections 323, 324, 504, 506) involving a family feud, where the Respondent was accused of "exhorting" others.

A Single Judge of the High Court quashed the endorsement and directed approval of the appointment.

The State appealed this order, arguing that non-disclosure and "undesirable character" disqualified her under Rule 10 of the KCS (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977.

1. Whether the pendency of a criminal case involving trivial offences and the alleged non-disclosure thereof constitutes a valid ground to deny approval of an appointment and salary grant.

2. Whether the character of the candidate can be deemed "undesirable" solely based on a pending charge sheet where the allegations do not involve moral turpitude.

Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, noting it requires verification of qualifications and character certificates but does not expressly mandate disqualification for pending cases.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016), which established that for trivial offences, the employer should not take a mechanical approach to non-disclosure.

State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana (2023), affirming that cases not involving moral turpitude or heinous crimes should not automatically result in termination or denial of appointment.

The Court observed that the criminal allegations against the Respondent were trivial, arising from a family feud, and lacked elements of moral turpitude.

Regarding the State's claim of "suppression," the Court found that the original job advertisement did not provide a specific format or column requiring the disclosure of pending criminal cases; thus, per Avtar Singh (para 38.10), a candidate cannot be penalized for not disclosing information that was never specifically asked for.

The Court distinguished the State's cited precedent, State of U.P. v. Dinesh Kumar, noting it involved heinous crimes (including POCSO Act charges), whereas the present case involved simple "exhortation" in a family dispute.

The Court concluded that until conviction, the candidate is presumed innocent and the mere filing of a charge sheet in a trivial matter does not demonstrate "adverse character."

The Court directed the State-Appellants to take effective steps to approve the Respondent's appointment and admit her to salary grant within two months and dropped the contempt petition (CCC No. 732/2025).