The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to deny the appointment of Vishal Saraswat as deputy collector in the Provincial Civil Services (Executive). The rejection was based on a pending criminal case against Saraswat, despite his existing employment in a Central government service.
Saraswat, currently serving in the Indian Defence Estates Service as chief executive officer of the Roorkee Cantonment Board, had successfully cleared the Combined State & Upper Subordinate Service Examination, 2019. He secured the top position in the examination and was recommended for the role of deputy collector.
During the verification process, Saraswat disclosed that he is an accused in a criminal case filed in 2017 under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including those related to dowry harassment and physical assault. The case, arising from a matrimonial dispute, also involves charges under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The Uttar Pradesh government declined his appointment, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the sensitivity of the position. Saraswat’s petition argued that this decision violated constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness.
The court considered whether the existence of criminal charges could disqualify a candidate already employed in a Central government post from being appointed to a state-level position.
The Court upheld the state government’s discretion to assess the suitability of candidates for sensitive roles. It emphasised that the nature of criminal charges and the public trust associated with the position of deputy collector require a higher standard of scrutiny. The judgment clarified that holding a post in a Central service does not automatically entitle a candidate to a similar or higher post in state services.
Additionally, the court highlighted that decisions regarding appointments are within the executive branch of the government domain. It stated that judicial intervention in such matters is limited to ensuring procedural fairness and the absence of malice.
The High Court supported the state government’s stand, which argued that the pending charges were serious and justified denying the appointment. The ruling noted that public employers are not obligated to align their decisions with those of other employers in similar cases.
