Rs. 100 Gambling Fine Cannot Bar Compassionate Appointment, Rules Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court set aside the cancellation of a compassionate appointment made solely on the basis of a Rs. 100 fine under the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, holding the offence does not involve moral turpitude.

Justice Kuldeep Mathur, sitting singly at the Jodhpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, on 4 May 2026 allowed a writ petition filed by Virendra Singh, a resident of Sri Ganganagar, whose compassionate appointment as Sahayak Karamchari (Assistant Employee) in the Secondary Education Department had been cancelled because police verification revealed a 2011 conviction carrying a fine of Rs. 100 under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949. The court found that the appointing authority had acted mechanically and contrary to the Department of Personnel's own circular dated 4 December 2019, which requires denial of government employment only where the conviction involves moral turpitude or violence. The order directs the respondents to permit Virendra Singh to join service forthwith.

Father's Death in Service and the Compassionate Appointment Process

Virendra Singh's father was a regular employee of the Secondary Education Department, Rajasthan. He died on 4 July 2024 while in service. Following his death, Virendra Singh applied for compassionate appointment under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996.

The respondents considered his candidature and, by office order dated 25 February 2025, approved his name for appointment to the post of Sahayak Karamchari. He was directed to appear before the District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary Education, Sri Ganganagar. His joining, however, was not accepted.

Subsequently, the Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner issued an order on 28 November 2025 cancelling the appointment. The stated ground was that police verification had disclosed FIR No. 306 dated 23 October 2011, registered against the petitioner for an offence under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949, in which a competent criminal court had sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 100.

The Competing Arguments

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mudit Nagpal, argued that the cancellation order was arbitrary and contrary to the circular dated 4 December 2019 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan. That circular, he submitted, provides that appointment in government service should ordinarily be denied only where a candidate is convicted of offences involving moral turpitude or violence.

He placed reliance on a coordinate bench decision of the same court in Alok Garg v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 8 April 2015 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5523/2007. That bench had, in turn, relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 17, to hold that imposition of a fine upon an accused who pleads guilty under the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance does not constitute moral turpitude. Counsel argued that denying appointment on such a ground would brand the petitioner a criminal for life and negate any opportunity for reform.

Counsel for the respondents, Mr. Bhupesh Charan appearing for Mr. N.K. Mehta, DGC, countered that Clause 1 of the same circular dated 4 December 2019 clearly indicates that a candidate who has been convicted and sentenced cannot be considered eligible for a government post. He submitted that the fact of conviction and sentence was not in dispute, and the appointing authority had rightly declared the petitioner ineligible by order dated 28 November 2025.

The Court's Reasoning on Moral Turpitude and Mechanical Denial

Justice Kuldeep Mathur examined the relevant service rules alongside the Personnel Department circular of 4 December 2019. The court found, on a prima facie reading, that the circular does not permit a mechanical denial of appointment in every case of conviction. Instead, it casts a duty on the appointing authority to examine each case carefully, and denial is warranted only where the offence involves moral turpitude or violence.

The court expressly followed the coordinate bench ruling in Alok Garg, which had held that imposition of a fine for an offence under the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance does not amount to moral turpitude. On that basis, Justice Mathur concluded that denying appointment to an otherwise eligible candidate on such a ground “cannot be sustained in law.”

The court did not accept the respondents' reading of Clause 1 of the circular as an absolute bar triggered by any conviction, regardless of the nature of the offence. The appointing authority's failure to examine whether the gambling offence involved moral turpitude or violence rendered the cancellation order legally unsustainable.

Order

The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 28 November 2025 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner was set aside.

The respondents were directed to permit Virendra Singh to join service on the post of Sahayak Karamchari forthwith. The court further directed that he shall be entitled to seniority, pay fixation, and other consequential benefits on a notional basis from the date of the order, i.e., 4 May 2026. The stay petition was disposed of as a consequence.