Non-disclosure of pending criminal cases for trivial offenses does not disqualify candidates from public employment.

The respondent, Rani S., was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Science-CBZ) by a private aided institution (Respondent No. 6) on 24.12.2022 following a public notification

A proposal for approval of her appointment and admission to salary grant was sent to the Department of Public Instructions.

The Deputy Director (Appellant No. 4) issued an endorsement on 15.06.2023 rejecting the proposal due to a pending criminal case (C.C. No. 1895/2021) against her for trivial offences under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, and 114 r/w 34 of the IPC, arising from a family feud

The respondent challenged this before the Writ Court, which quashed the endorsement and directed the State to approve her appointment

The State appealed this order, primarily arguing that non-disclosure of the pending criminal case rendered her unsuitable

1. Whether the pendency of a criminal case involving trivial offences and the alleged non-disclosure thereof constitute a valid ground for disqualifying a candidate from appointment and salary grant approval

2. Whether Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, empowers the authorities to deny approval based on the mere pendency of a criminal charge not involving moral turpitude

Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, which governs character verification but does not explicitly disqualify candidates for pending criminal cases of a trivial nature

The landmark Supreme Court precedents of Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) regarding the yardsticks for disclosure and suppression of material information

State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana (2023), which held that trivial offences not involving moral turpitude should not be used to deny employment

The court also distinguished the State's reliance on State of U.P. v. Dinesh Kumar, noting it applied only to heinous crimes

The court found that the allegations against the respondent—primarily that she exhorted others during a family dispute—were trivial and did not involve moral turpitude

Applying the Avtar Singh principles, specifically para 38.10, the court noted that the job advertisement did not provide a specific format or column requiring the disclosure of pending criminal cases

Consequently, "suppression" could not be alleged where the information was never specifically solicited

The court reasoned that under Rule 10, the respondent had provided the necessary character certificates and that a mere charge sheet (which is yet to be proved) does not demonstrate "undesirable" character sufficient to merit disqualification

Furthermore, the High Court had already stayed the underlying criminal proceedings in a separate petition

The Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal, affirming the Writ Court's order and directed the Appellants to comply with the Writ Court's order to approve the appointment and salary grant within two months; consequently, the contempt petition (CCC No. 732/2025) was dropped