In a sharply worded rebuke of bureaucratic rigidity, the Rajasthan High Court has told the State to stop hiding behind a blanket rule and start using judgment. The case? A woman, fully qualified and cleared for a prestigious spot in the Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS), was denied her appointment—not because of any wrongdoing proven in court, but because her late husband had once filed an FIR against her during a personal dispute.
Justice Arun Monga wasn’t having it.
The FIR, lodged in 2020, stemmed from a matrimonial conflict. The petitioner, Neeraj Kanwar, had disclosed the case in her forms with full transparency. Still, the State leaned on a clause in the 2021 recruitment ad, claiming any candidate facing a criminal trial was automatically ineligible.
Not so fast, said the Court.
It pointed out that no statute or rule supports this kind of blanket disqualification. In fact, the clause itself was “untenable in law” and “wrongly inserted,” the judge observed, tossing it aside like an ill-fitting cog in an otherwise well-oiled machine.
The State’s argument crumbled further under scrutiny. Authorities hadn’t raised a single concern during Kanwar’s verification process. They had all the facts and still proceeded—until they didn’t. Appointment letters went out to everyone else. Kanwar was left on the sidelines.
Worse yet, the man who filed the complaint—her husband—had died before she even applied for the job.
The Court emphasized that simply having a case pending doesn’t make someone unsuitable. What matters is the nature of the allegation, whether it involves moral turpitude, and if it truly affects one’s ability to do the job. In Kanwar’s case, none of that held true. The charges didn’t suggest corruption, dishonesty, or anything that should block her career path.
There was no evidence the government had ever taken a hard look at the case’s substance. They hadn’t considered the context, the job duties, or even the fact that the trial was still pending. That, the Court made clear, wasn’t just unfair—it was arbitrary.
And so, the Court stepped in to fix it.
It ordered the State to finalize Kanwar’s appointment, turning her earlier provisional appointment—granted by an interim court order—into a permanent one. The only caveat: if convicted, she can’t later claim special treatment just because she was already on the job.
This ruling isn’t just a win for one woman—it’s a sharp reminder that red tape can’t be a substitute for reason.
